Christians & Politics: The Great Falling Away?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm an older man, soon to be 57 years old. I've been a Christian since I was 19. Back then, the debate was about whether or not we should even vote. My personal view is based on the fact that I can't find any precedent, command, exhortation, or concept in the New Testament to support Christian political mobilization. Because of my age, this is something I've had the opportunity to watch from the beginning - up close. I'm finding it just as disturbing now as I did way back then.

At the core is the meaning of the Kingdom Of God, and the idea that there can be such a thing as a "Christian Nation." It doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Our democracy, while being one of the more humanitarian forms of government, is not a Christian concept. Democracy is simply another system of the cosmos that will surely pass away.

I understand all the issues at stake, so I don't say these things lightly. The Kingdom Of God is no democracy - it is a monarchy, and Christ Himself is our King of Kings. Every principality and power will be thrown down before Him. There is a part of the Kingdom Of God that is here and now, for those who have eyes to see it. In earlier times, this was much more clear.

Many of God's people have chosen to follow those who believe a certain eschatology - that a Golden Age of the Church will reign and rule and have dominion over the Earth prior to Christ's return. They believe the Kingdom Of God must be brought into being through the world system, with Christians at the helm. They believe in forcing Christian principles upon the unsaved, after they themselves have recieved not the judgment, but the mercy of God for their wretchedness. All of us were dead in our sins when the grace of God found us, redeemed us, forgave us, and blessed us with the power and comfort of the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God never tells us to try and change the worldly governments under which we live, but rather to pray for our leaders, whoever they are. But others are insisting on a plot that always ends in disaster: trying to bring about the work of the Holy Spirit by the power of the flesh, but Paul said, "For we do not fight against flesh and blood..." The Church has sold its soul to politics, and has forgotten that we are called to live as quietly and peaceably as we can, to help the poor and the oppressed, and to be ready to share the Gospel with the unsaved, but the spreading of the Gospel has lost its priority in the Church of today. The Gospel has become that of lower taxes, smaller government, and legislating morality.

We need revival - not revivalism, but a true spiritual awakening in this country.

I once saw Billy Graham on Johnny Carson's The Tonight Show. At that time, Rev Graham had been named, The Most Trusted Man In America (imagine any minister having that perception today). Many people, even politicians, had urged Billy Graham to run for political office - even President. Johnny Carson asked him, "Have you seriously considered running for President?" Billy Graham replied, "I'd be giving up a higher calling." How many celebrity Christian leaders would give that same answer today?

Blessings To All
The Aspie Christian

We live in a country in which we are guaranteed the freedom to voice our opinions and change our government. The reason people usually give for not voting is that Christ chose to stay out of politics. However, Jesus stayed out of politics because as someone who had the potential to be a great political and military leader, it would defeat the purpose of requiring faith on the part of the believer. We have the chance to come to Christ willingly. We won't always have that chance.

The reason we SHOULD vote, however, is because we have the reason to do so and no one else is going to protect our rights for us as Christians. Take abortion, for instance. Now, yes, from a Biblical standpoint, we have the right to protect ourselves, or families, and our loved ones from harm. So morally, I feel a woman would be justified in killing a baby if the baby represented a REAL THREAT to the mother's life. Of course, a mother may choose to give her life for that of her baby, but that's a whole other argument. The Bible places great emphasis on the sanctity of life, and that alone is reason enough that we should vote, for example, in opposition to abortion laws.

There is, however, a deeper threat that had been part of the controversy over the new health care bill that was recently signed into law (for the time being abortion had been a hot point of contention). In principle, the problem of abortion goes something like this: The OT strictly forbids idolatry. God was in favor of using the Israelites to wipe out all of Canaan (analogous to modern-day genocide). The crime of idolatry extended not just to plain worship of false gods, but also to some similar practices of those people whether it was in the context of worship or not. One practice was "passing children through the fire to Moloch" (child sacrifice). It was well known that prostitution was rampant and was part of temple worship. Naturally, it follows that these prostitutes would have gotten pregnant at some point, and it's hardly likely these children would have been wanted. Child sacrifice would have been a convenient way of getting rid of unwanted babies. It ain't murder if you do it for a god!

Allocating federal tax money to supporting abortion, then, would equate to supporting a hideous idolatrous practice, something no Christian in good conscience could ever do (the NT condemns idolatry, also). And that would be crossing the line between government and religious freedom.

The health care bill never passed with a proper vote nor wide popular appeal. At least with pressure from voters and the conservative right (to include Christians), THAT part of the bill will never have any effect--we have guarantees from an amendment and executive order that renders it a non-issue (for now). The problem that remains for many of us was that the abortion language was part of the health care bill to begin with, and what almost happened was terribly disturbing for many of us.

So yes, since we have the power to make changes and protect our freedoms, we have a civic duty in this country to vote and try to influence the politicians who represent us (not the other way as it seems to be in today's political climate). Much worse things can happen if Christians refuse to get involved.

A problem in your position (which I too have struggled with) is that the NT was written at a time when there were no governments that recognized the individual Citizen as the source of all sovereign power (short of God Himself).

While we might accept that God allows who does or does not come to power, ultimately, America is a nation where the Citizen is the highest earthly authority...with people in political office being SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE, not MASTERS OVER THE PEOPLE.

To this end, Christians have a duty to keep government in its proper place through the legal machinery provided.

You might debate what exactly the Founding Fathers intended, but it is clear that those who came to found America frequently fled from religious persecution...most notably a king who made himself head of the national church rather than be in submission to God. A study of the Word of God shows that God wants men to be free in the truest sense of the word, and that includes freedom from bondage to other men. Most governments in existence, even today, regard the individual as property to be exploited. The Founding Fathers concluded that the sole function of government was to preserve individual liberty, not to be a lord and master over the individual.

There is so much to say about this. First, Christians are instructed to pray "on Earth as it is in Heaven." I'm not sure it's practical to tell a Christian that they can make this happen in their daily life but not in the realm of politics. The pragmatic reality is that Muslims with their Sharia Law, the gay rights movement, feminists, and every other ideology out there is trying to use the political process to impose their views on Christians, so we cannot be silent or uninvolved.

However, it is clear to any Christian aware of prophecy that God's Will WILL NOT be done because that's what the battle of Armageddon is all about. It could never happen if our efforts to have God's Will done here on Earth would be successful.

Still, just because we won't be successful doesn't mean we should not strive to make it so.



So true. I don't blame the "Church" for being politically active, but I am amazed at how easily it trusts a political party because they think it will help them have a voice. Perhaps part of the problem is that we have a political system that locks out 3rd party options....forcing everyone to pick between two parties who ultimately serve the interests of Satan...just via different methodologies.

Lower taxes and smaller government are important because the opposite of both are tools to oppress religious freedoms (is your church "tax exempt?" Check out the IRS rules on what that allows the government to dictate). Legislated morality is a mixed issue. In one respect, it's a major failure, but in contrast, open tolerance results in a faster downward progression of sin and wickedness in society.

It really is ironic how people can turn these things on their head.

If gay people getting married is forcing their views on you, then you are forcing your views on Muslims by not requiring all women to wear a burka.

Religious freedom entails the right to not be constrained from practicing your religion yourself by outside interference from persons independent on your religion and its practice. In no way does it convey on you the right to force others to conduct themselves according to your personally held beliefs about mystical invisible sky wizards or other random deities. That is when you cease to protect your own freedoms and have crossed over into attacking someone else's freedom.

I am happy for people to be religious until it interferes with me and my rights, and the rights of other members of society who do not share a particular religion someone seeks to force on them. If your religious practice does not stop short of forcing others to behave in accordance with your religious belief, it ceases to be mere religious practice and commences to be religious intolerance. I see no reason why religious intolerance should be given legislative power or recognition, and frankly I expect you would be vehemently against it yourself in any and every circumstance other than when the religion being forced on people happens to be your own.

Muslims are as perfectly free to exercise their religion as Christians are theirs insofar as they harm no one. Muslims HAVE the freedom to require their members to wear burkas if they so desire. But when OUR government oversteps its bounds and imposes an ideology that Christians can't merely opt out of, then it must be held accountable by Christians and other like-minded individuals.

I mentioned abortion in hopes of avoiding other controversial debates, something pandd was quick to bring up, but I'll do my best to avoid getting into it. The fact is, whether we as Christians like it or not, or whether we approve of it or not, women DO have access to abortion clinics and are supported under the law. If Christians believe it is wrong, as many of us do, then we may speak out against it (and we do speak out) or try to change the laws. There is nothing wrong with those actions. However, when a government imposes its ideals on a religious group, the rights of that group (by indirectly and/or tacitly supporting it) are called into question. They must be given the opportunity to opt out in some way, and Christian teaching advises Christians to joyfully pay their taxes! In a free country/society, this requires Christians to actively oppose it. Thankfully it is a non-issue for the time being.

For now, I'll leave other controversial ideas such as those pandd brought up to be debated by others. Suffice it to say that one particular religious groups ideals and beliefs seem often under attack when those who follow it mean or intend no harm. As long as we are free to, we will exercise those freedoms to worship and believe as we feel our conscience directs us and does no harm or encroach on the liberties of others. I dread the day that we'll be incarcerated or worse in THIS country for holding such beliefs--not so much for fear of such consequences, but of the great loss to the guarantees upon this nation was founded.

I can't speak for other governments. I figure, if somewhat naively, you don't like how things are going and you are powerless to effect change or at least stand against injustice on principle and be represented, then you ought to at least be perfectly able to leave (or at least die trying).

Well, I am not sure that this was the goal. You sound like a person upholding democracy, and America was not a nation built to be democratic. The idea of America was to be more of a Republic, and most of the people in government were not put in there by the majority of people. Now, in some sense, you are right, America rejected the idea that politicians were masters over the people, but that's technically just a historical fact. I mean, America today could explicitly say "Nix that, we're doing it this way now" and if there is a constitutional amendment, then the legal machinery would support this.


Umm.... yeah, sure. I don't think that the Bible spends a lot of time talking about the goals of the Founding Fathers.


Well, many came as indentured servants to get land. Many colonies were founded for tobacco.

The word of God is actually relatively indifferent on the matter of slavery to men. It might be somewhat against, but it certainly tolerates outright slavery, which is inconceivable if the goal is to free men from bondage to other men. Obviously the goal must have been different.

So to paraphrase AngleRho
If you are not a christian, and no one stops you from personally obeying a religious tennet so long as you do not force anyone else to do the same, then you are free.

If you are a christian and no one stops you obeying a religion tennet, but you cannot use the law to force it on anyone else, then your freedom is under attack and you must defend it.

If you are not a christian and you try to make anyone else obey your religious tennets, like making christian women wear the burka, this is imposing your religion on others and is religious intolerance.

If you are a christian and you try to make everyone else obey your religious tennets, by force of law, and anyone resists, then you are harmless folk , who must defend your freedom to force the implications of your religion on everyone else.

You cannot give a single good reason why your beliefs about invisible sky wizards actually are more likely to be true than those of Muslims about a similar or same invisible sky wizard, and so are basing the notion that Christian belief must be forced on others and all other beliefs should not be, on the basis that by historico-cultural accident, you happen to personally be on the Christian team?

Do I have that about right?

Not so. Even in a republic, the power to govern is derived from the people, who are the highest sovereign authority and to whom government is a servant to, not a master over. The republican form of government prevents "mob rule" which is what you have in a strict democracy.



Of course. As I clearly stated, the NT was written in a time when the concept of individuals being the source of all sovereign political power did not exist.



Many don't realize that modern employment law comes from "master/servant law" which is derived, in part, from standards laid out in the Book of Leviticus. The Bible allows slavery, but not as it was practiced in the American colonies and the early years of the republic before the Civil War.



No. You are oversimplifying it.

First, Muslims embrace Sharia Law. Many elements of Sharia Law are incompatible with the jurisprudence of nations they chose to live in. I suppose to Muslims could mutually contract and agree to let Sharia Law dictate terms and conditions between two Muslims. However, there would be issues of fairness and equity to consider. If a woman has virtually no rights under Sharia Law, then a contract concerning her might be invalid because she really had no bargaining power when entering the contract...in fact she probably did not enter the contract of her own free will.

Certainly, a Muslim can not be permitted impose the standards of Sharia Law upon a non-Muslim when there is a dispute. Add into this mix the fact that in most places Muslims settle, they have an overt goal to impose Sharia Law on everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) and you see a problem. They are not living to their own code and respecting the rights of others, they are trying to force their way of life upon everyone else.

Hence, it's okay if Muslim women want to wear a burka. Should she be allowed to have an ID card where her face is covered? No. It defeats the purpose of an ID card. Could an ID card have a workaround with her thumbprint? Maybe, but is it practical for the government to provide accommodation for every diverse belief system out there?

Now, let's look at gay marriage. A problem with "let gays have their gay marriage" is a fundamental question of what is marriage. Until late, the state had no authority to decide who could and could not marry. Even now, if I ever marry, I will not ask the state's permission. The state has no lawful ground to decide if any two people can marry. They just decided one day they would start requiring people to get a piece of paper and that's how it came to pass.

So, aside from the fundamental question of what is "marriage" and if two people of the same sex can be "married," you have the issue of what happens if the state accepts the "marriage" of two homosexual people. Does this require that gay couples get equal treatment from employers as far as "spousal benefits?" Can the refusal to recognize such relations be criminalized? Is it right to force someone who believes such relations to be "unholy" to reward them under threat of law? If so, how is that any better than religious people forcing their views upon a non-believer?

This is what makes gay marriage a hot topic. There has been no concealment of the agenda to use gay marriage to force many issues of equality in other sectors. The gay rights community would love to abolish any person or institution (including churches) from preaching that homosexual conduct is "sinful." Laws (and criminal prosecution) to this end have already come to pass in Europe. Since churches know this agenda exists, they must fight or risk being forced to accept persecution for not accepting something their beliefs teach is "wickedness."

If gays and lesbians kept to themselves and didn't try to coerce others into accepting them, and if churches could preach what they wish so long as they didn't go out of their way to harm anyone, that's about the best you could hope for, but the truth is that the gay rights movement want's 100% equality in all things, and that's not possible without criminalizing anyone or anything that offends them. Hence, churches put up a fight because they know if they don't fight it now, they will lose everything.

We are all forced to support things we oppose. I oppose the gigantic spending on the military, subsidies to corporations, bailouts of corporations because they make stupid decisions, wars that are started for stupid reasons - just because I don't have a religious document to argue those beliefs doesn't make my objections any less valid nor does it mean that my opposition gives me the right to exempt myself from the law. Religious rights should end where other people's rights begin - if you look at the burden of a religious person who is "forced to endure" the fact that another person may get married to a person of the same sex, it is much less of a burden than it is on a gay person who has to work their way through the law just to get basic rights - such as being able to visit their partner in the hospital or to not be treated like a second-class citizen.

Sharia law is not accepted by all Muslims, and there are many who argue that it is not upheld by Islam and more of a compilation of Middle Eastern tribal beliefs. Either way, in the United States, there is a contract law that would override any agreement made using religious law and any provisions that contradict would be adjudicated through American law so you can't force someone into a contract based on Sharia or Christian or Jewish law unless the provisions would be otherwise valid under contract law.

pandd: ALMOST right. You seem to be generally anti-religious, anti-Christian in particular, and some statements you made seem unfair in my view. I'll try to clarify.

#1: True. That applies to ANY religion or even if the individual doesn't follow a religion at all.
#2: False. There is no way in THIS country to establish any law to force Christianity on others, nor should there be. Besides, if we were able to force our religion on others, that implies the potential for others to do the same, and that is certainly not something that would work in the best interest of anyone of any religion.
#3: Partially true, as in "imposing your religion on others." Religious intolerance, though? That might be a bit extreme for the situation. Most religions in this country peacefully co-exist without tolerating or condoning each other. For some, and we're not limited to Christianity here, "tolerance" would mean a compromise of the tenets of that religion, so intolerance within a group is within the rights of that group. Personally, I'd like to see terms expressed regarding these practices that are less politically charged than "tolerance/intolerance." Intolerance within a religious context does not denote hatred, nor does it mean that American citizens are allowed to destroy each other in the name of religion.

As to a more specific example--nowhere in the Bible does it say women have to wear a burka. The apostle Paul, however, placed emphasis on natural distinctions, plainly that men should look like men, women should look like women, and there were certain cultural norms of that period of time that governed hair coverings for women. While those cultural rules do not apply in present-day America, the underlying principle is still the same. If a Christian woman were to travel to a foreign country with a strict interpretation of Sharia in place, it would only be proper for her to wear a burka or at least some kind of head covering. In other cultures, publicly exposing the breasts (though I'm sure many Christian women would not be comfortable with that themselves) is the norm but revealing the calf of the leg is taboo.

That's just the difference in law from country to country. But we aren't talking about other countries, we're talking about the USA.

Christians are encouraged to follow the laws of the country where ever they are. Within a country that guarantees freedom to choose its leadership and laws, we all have a civic duty to protect our freedoms regardless of creed. We do that by voting and being politically involved. I think that the prohibitions some Christians have had against doing this might have stemmed from a misunderstanding of Jesus' position on the matter and that of early Christians who didn't necessarily have those kinds of rights. To be involved in politics within the framework of, say, the Roman Empire, which was known to be a lascivious and corrupt system, would risk corruption of the believer. Christians in the USA are not NECESSARILY faced with that problem. Protecting our freedom of religion isn't just protecting OUR freedom, but that of all people.

#4: False

And no, I can't give any good reasons regarding invisible sky wizards, but I can give PLENTY of good reasons in favor of Jesus, God, and the text of the Bible. However, that is hardly the point. I never once said anything about why Christianity SHOULD be imposed on others, only that certain key things might from time-to-time be imposed on Christians (the issue of being forced to tacitly support abortion). We don't have the right to blow up abortion clinics, for example. Likewise, to borrow a pro-choice phrase, we can choose NOT to have abortions if we don't like it. Reasons for/against abortion are another topic for another thread, but suffice it for now that the right to an abortion need not be the sole domain of Christian belief, because the REAL issue is whether life begins at conception or not. This is one of those things that no one in the scientific or religious community can make a falsifiable claim to, which leaves the issue to the personal conviction of the individual. However, I've already stated a perfectly workable Christian position on the issue as to why it would be a compromise to our faith to allow our tax money to pay for it. Once a government encroaches upon the practice of religion of one group, it is free to encroach upon the same right to practice of others

Here's another way this works: The exercise of Christianity includes proselytizing. To deny us any forum for persuasion would be wrong. We Christians GENERALLY do this by an open public invitation to our churches. Also, generally, it is accepted that anyone can walk into any church to seek to learn more about that faith. If they remain curious and choose to return and ultimately (publicly) profess a like faith, they may formally become a member of that church. If on the other hand the reject the Gospel, they are free to leave and never return if they so desire. Many of us engage in local missions, often through charitable and volunteer work, and some go into foreign countries where the practice and spread of Christianity is strictly limited or prohibited altogether. Sharing our beliefs with and persuading others is guaranteed by our government--that is, freedom of religion, expression, speech, and so on.

Take that a step further. Some groups go door-to-door in their proselytizing, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses. No law prevents just anyone rolling up in your driveway. However, being invaded on your own turf, so-to-speak, also opens an equal and opposite door: Proselytizing the proselytizer. You want to scare away a Witness? Try to teach them.

Freedom.

If you have, say, a homosexual agenda, or an abortion agenda, or an atheist agenda, or an agnostic agenda, or any kind of religious or even political agenda at all, no law prevents you from doing the same. The only thing that can stop you from going door-to-door is a sign on a person's lawn or gate or door that says "no trespassing" or "no soliciting." That person's intention is made clear before you even make the turn, but most likely people like that are in the minority in most neighborhoods. Your right to preach whatever you want is protected.

Let's go even deeper. Most of us, myself included, will likely agree that the Klan is a hateful group that has often caused great harm and racial disenfranchisement in the past and, left unchecked, would probably continue to do the same long into the future. Likewise, most of us (myself included) would agree that we're better off if such groups don't exist. HOWEVER, even THAT group is guaranteed a right to their point of view. They do NOT have the right, though, to pass out literature door-to-door that would incite others to violence any more than I can claim it's my freedom of expression and persuasion to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Do you see the difference? I can remember as recent as the mid-90's when the Klan held a public demonstration and parade on the town square of Philadelphia, Mississippi. One of my black friends actually WENT to see it! The Klan marchers could do so because they are guaranteed the right to do so under the law. I didn't actually go, but I do suspect that there were likely protestors there (also granted protection under the law) as well as my black friend who knew that no harm would come to him because of his own civil rights.

Now, regarding the Klan as a hate group, in order to do something like that they'd have to approach a city counsel to request a permit in order to do something like that. Depending on the attitudes of the electorate, they might be denied such a permit. However, there would have to be something more substantive than a mayor/counsel saying "You're a hate group and we don't like you." In principle, the same counsel would have to reject a proposal for a "gay pride" parade. Yet we know that religious and minority groups hold demonstrations all the time. Unless there is a very real, necessary reason why one group should be allowed to express one view and another group denied, the rights of all must be protected.

Getting back to the point: Christians have no real reason to incite violence or encroach upon the rights of others. Expressing our views in the spirit of civility is not harmful, either, nor does it compromise the freedom of others to live and express opposing viewpoints. It does become a problem, though, when the rights of some (taxpayer funding of abortion) compromises the religious convictions of others (Christians paying taxes) in such a way that it is unavoidable (tax payments required by law). If, for example, you want public support for abortion rights, just get some like-minded friends together and start an abortion assistance fund, invest it all in mutual funds or some other kind of endowment, and forward the proceeds to an abortion clinic in the name of some poor girl who filled out an application. That infringes on the rights of no one. As to whether that's moral or ethical, well, that's a different topic. If you don't like Christians, don't go to church. But just as you are guaranteed freedom of or freedom from religion yourself, likewise accept and respect the freedoms of those that you disagree with.

By the way, the abortion issue in the health care debate is a moot point for the time being. There are other issues as well, and to my recollection Planned Parenthood is already supported in part by tax money in some jurisdictions if not all (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the health care problem had more to do with the insurance mandate that would open the door to total support on the part of all taxpayers (even Christian opponents of abortion). If Planned Parenthood already enjoys some limited public support, which would infuriate its opponents enough as it is, imagine how much more egregious we'd find it if it was handed unanimous support in direct violation of public opinion.

Right, but most people couldn't vote and significant numbers lacked significant rights, such as women and certainly slaves. Sure, the ideal is "power is derived from the people", but if most of them can't vote then how is power being derived? Just by their mere presence?


Right, but you're deriving a theological claim from absolutely nothing. That, as best I can tell, is what people call BS.


Ok, but it is still slavery! Slavery that gets in the way of this. Additionally, we're not talking just about Hebrew slavery, we're talking about Roman slavery because Paul was writing about Roman slavery and slaves.

You're going into a deeper issue about enfranchisement. The Founding Fathers allowed voting rights only to property owners (which were predominantly white men) because of the belief that those most impacted by the choices of government should have the most to say about what government could do. Agree or disagree, the evidence proves that by extending voting rights to everyone, the result has been support for more and more "social programs" for those who don't really pay much into the system at the expense of those who do. I will omit the various and sundry quotes about how the fall of a society begins with taking from one to give to another.



Keep in mind the concept of "employer" didn't really exist until recent times. Back in those days, you were either a MASTER or a SERVANT. Whether you "bought" your servant or "contacted" for them to serve you for a period of years, they were still a "servant" and once designated as such, they were bound to their master until terms were met to release them.

Just to clarify the Biblical perspective of slavery, nowhere does the Bible condone or establish the institution of slavery, not even in Leviticus. Slavery was already a human establishment before God gave the Law to Moses. God recognized that slavery had come into being as a result of man's sinful nature. Laws regarding slaves were given so that servants would find relief and justice in their status. You'll find this phrase often, "Remember, you were slaves in Egypt."

Another feature of slavery in ancient Israel is that in the ancient Israelite system of justice, there was no such thing as incarceration. Jail time prevents inmates from being productive members of society. Justice in that society meant the punishment couldn't be greater than the equivalent of the crime (except in the case of "life for a life" in which there WAS no equivalent and blood was required for blood). So debts incurred by crimes, whether intentional or accidental, could be worked off for a period of time but forgiven in the Year of Jubilee. Israelites WERE permitted to take foreign slaves for life, but even that was not without regulation. A slave who was being treated unfairly could run away and live under the protection of a new master because the law forbade the return of runaway slaves. In effect, and note the symbolism here, by running away from an evil master to a good master one essentially gained freedom.

The Israelites of that time, in contrast to us today, had no need of any democratic assembly. The ideal was that God was King and His law was justice for all people. It was, in fact, the priests who were responsible for administering justice, and there was even an appeals process (if the local priest/judge couldn't resolve a grievance, it could be referred up to the next level). Otherwise, the people did pretty much what they wanted. It was the anointing of kings that caused the most trouble as it removed God as the figurehead of Israel. After the division of Israel and Judah, it was poor leadership of the kings and failure to acknowledge God and keep His commandments that ultimately led to the destruction of both kingdoms and foreign rule.

Our system is based on self-rule rather than God-rule, and thus inconsistency and disagreement are just part of life. However, there doesn't seem to be a better, more effective, non-theocratic alternative!

In my thinking, if there was ever a slippery slope, and I rarely buy the slippery-slope argument about anything, this is it. It's so easy to say we have some kind of civic duty to the semi-benevolent government that has claimed rights to the geographical area we have come to know as the United States. I have seen the blossoming of this heterodoxy since I was a very young man. When I first became a Christian, I was part of the conservative church, which, in regard to politics, was still deriding liberals over their politicism - called "Social Gospel" back then - in other words, Christians seeking to make our society a more humanitarian one. The conservatives used the same argument against the liberals that I'm using against conservatives - that there are spiritual ways to provoke change without involving ourselves in political action. Now, the conservatives are drinking of the same cup that was once their foundation for attacking liberal Christians. In light of church history, I see the conservatives as finally giving in to syncretism - there is now no difference between the KOG and the USA - a poisonous teaching in my view, and one that is not necessarily pleasing to God.

It's odd how different parts of the church will appeal to cultural changes as their guide for acceptable Christian behavior. I'm not necessarily against this notion, but I find it interesting - the manner in which the church selects which of these practices of the early church to discard. So now the argument is that the early church lived under a psychotic Caesar in a society that included emperor-worship and polytheism. Now that we live in a federalist republic which is religion-friendly, it is suddenly okay to participate, mobilize, use the most bitter forms of speech to attack those who disagree with their politics, or their so-called morality, which I see as nothing more that self-righteous entitlement, from a group of people who have obviously forgotten their righteousness comes from the blood of Christ, and is not their own. There are, however, occasional outstanding examples from people like Franky Schaeffer, who has become the apologizer for his father's apologism.

I don't see many conservative Christians out there lobbying to end homelessness, or helping the sick and the needy. I do see paranoia over words like "socialism," and when I read the posts and responses of political Christians, it so often seems that the words coming out of their mouths, (or fingers), have been put there by others. Most of these folks wouldn't know socialism if Marx came back from the dead to explain it. I don't mean to cast stones here; I'm just saying their comments mostly show less than a high-school understanding of political systems, (and I don't necessarily mean here, on this forum). In fact, a strong Aspie trait, as I'm sure you all know, is the ability to delve into the intellectual, and put forth well-constructed arguments, with occasional meanderings.

I was going to explain what I have witnessed in the church over the years regarding its politicization in this post, but I've already rambled enough and I'll make it a new topic. Please realize, my devotion; my allegiance, are to the Lord's Christ, and I believe we're living in a time in history, while not necessarily apocalyptic, requires God's intervention. It is strictly the Kingdom Of God, as I understand it in my human frailty, that concerns me - the suburban bumper-sticker Christianity I've seen growing over the last 35 years.

Thank you to those who have responded. I look forward to a focused reading of each of them. I too, am searching for God's answer during a time when we have alienated the unsaved more than ever.

Blessings to all

Ok, but a man I did not select and who has been put in power based upon his perceived goodness to another person really is hard to consider my "servant" as such a person has no ties to me.


Because the parable of the workers in the vineyard is so completely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... e_Vineyard

In this parable the notion of hiring workers for a specific wage is upheld, so I don't see where your position comes in.