Follow me here…if you are a republican and an evangelical you probably are very conservative. Likewise, you probably are a part of the “Religious Right.” Above everything else this means you understand America’s Christian Heritage and to some extent want America to remain a “Christian Nation.” I have been in this camp for a while. I at one time listen to Rush and Hannity religiously, and I did vote for Bush twice. But here is the thing, I have become more and more liberal on economic issues and with regards to government. I would venture to say that Rush, Hannity, and Joseph Farrah (worldnetdaily.com) would label me a bleeding heart. However, I have not come to this conclusion because I have backed off of my Christian Faith or even became less evangelical…it is because of my Christian faith that I have become much more liberal on economics issues.
If this nation claims to be a Christian Nation, not in name only but in action, then it must take care of the poor. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. To take care of the poor, the widow, the stranger, and the orphan…to be the hands and feet of Jesus; this is the Christian Faith. Only those who want to continue to push the Church and State apart will say “this is only for the church not the Nation.” If you say that about this very basic tenet of the Christian Faith (that the U.S. is free from its God-given duty to take care of the Poor), though you have kept the name of a Christian Nation, then you have regulated America’s destiny to practical atheism.
On the other side, the religious left has drummed the beat of the downtrodden, the poor, the widow, and stranger. They have championed the cause of Christ, but have hidden His name as if they are were so scared that someone might see their good deeds and worship the Father in Heaven. They have walked the walk, but they have forgotten why they have even started down this path to begin with….and the reason bears the Name above all names. Out of fear for the potential partnership of the Church and State the left has abandoned her God and witness to Jesus Christ for political pandering. I don’t doubt that Christ influences some of their decisions, but I doubt they really understand that Christ is Lord of the World not just of their hearts.
The Right has the Name but has left Jesus outside knocking, the Left has the Heart but has thought it best to ignore the One who created it.
So what am I suggesting? Well for the Right who wants to see a larger Christian Presence in American Politics, they need to support Government programs that take care of the poor and champion them as a Cause for Christ. Allow our government to act Christian and then it might possibly live up to the Name she supposedly bears. And on the left, don’t fear the Christianizing of America. The more Christian America becomes the better for everyone, Christian and Non-Christian. Tear down the fictious wall that Jefferson and the Baptists put up between the Church and State. Then maybe the Right and Left can join hands and pray together: “Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
Pax,
Br. Dale, C.J.
Interesting.
I am evangelical Christian & at one time would have considered myself a conservative. Not so sure any more, maybe moderate. Politically, I want as little government involvement in my life as possible. Government programs like welfare have always bothered more many reasons. Primarlily, I feel that it is the church’s responsiblity to take care of the pooor and those in need. However, the “church” as a whole as failed at this. No, I don’t think we should cut funding for social programs. Instead those in the church who complain about government involvement should meeting the needs of the poor & others in the community. Provide programs that replace government programs at least for their community. Oh, and don’t take the government’s money to do the job either. Yes, I know my idea is impractical. However as Christians we could and should become more socially conscionous. Do something to make a differance.
DH
The answer to your question lies between the lines of your post, within your own experience. You claim that you have become less “conservative,” and more “liberal,” especially in areas like economics, social policy and poverty.
You also believe that the separation between church and state should be undone, the Jeffersonian wall brought down.
Wait a minute, sparky. If the political realm of conservative politics did not prove to be the place where your faith could make a difference, then…
Maybe that’s the reason there remains a separation between church and state? I don’t think Christ was making a suggestion when he spoke of rendering unto Caesar vs. rendering undo God. I think he was describing a plain fact of earthly reality as he perceived it.
And if you have time, check out the question about partisanship at http://www.12thandrepublic.blogspot.com.
Here is the thing, I do believe it is the Church that should be helping the Poor…and one of the ways they could help is through a Christian Government. I am saying that if we really wanted to be a Christian Nation that would not entail public prayer in School as much as it would taking care of the poor through taxes.
Unfortunately, I see and hear this argument more and more – that somehow more Government involvement in anti-poverty programs is what Christians should now support.
To me it is the exact opposite. True love and charity are only possible at the one-on-one level. We, the Church, are commanded to help the poor. That means getting our hands dirty and helping them in many ways, not simply writing a check. Most people will never escape poverty or become Christian simply by getting a handout. It takes prolonged and dedicated involvement and love in their lives, which is sadly lacking today in so many ways.
Government socialism makes this even worse. First, it makes what should be a voluntary charitable action (which benefits giver and receiver), into a coercive action, and thereby also creates entitlement, envy and injustice. Next, it prohibits some people from freely giving by comandeering such a large part of their incomes that less time and money remain for charitable works. Third, government charity is almost always bureaucratic and impersonal, it is typically very inefficient and corrupt, whereas personal charity is much better in all these respects.
But the worst situation it creates is, that in many Christians minds, an expectation that it is the governments job to help the poor. We don’t need to get involved even in our neighbors lives, much less the widows and orphans, because there are agencies and bureaucracies to help them out which our tax dollars pay for. It is no longer an individual responsibility, it is a group responsiblity. And when it becomes a group responsiblity, it is no ones responsibility.
So I’m sorry, but I have to totally disagree with this premise. To me, support of more government programs, and more government control of economics, is nearly as anti-Christian and anti-poverty as are social policies on abortion, etc.
I am not saying that Christians should get behind a secular government, I am saying that we should promote a Christian Government that works hand in hand with the Church to provide for the needy. In essence, the Church would be doing this as a part of the Government.
Pax,
Br. Dale
I agree with Evan, that there is a certain degree to which government charity has a lifeless effect. It is taken as a handout, and over time certain assumptions develop in the mind of americans.
For one, there’s the understanding (especially in conservative politics) of whats called the Nanny State, a government expected by its people to give handouts, not to mention tell its people how and when to do everything. “Wear your seatbelt.” “Turn down your thermostat.” “Here’s your monthly allowance (welfare), don’t spend it all in one place.” The obvious effects of the Nanny State are an inability of an average citizen to be responsible and make his/her own decisions. If there’s an enforced government policy or direction for everything, why do I even need to think about it? Just take the direction and in the meantime, only worry about the immediate things that make me comfortable.
I think we can safely say that the institutionalization and impersonal giving of welfare and other social programs turn them not into charity but into a simple handout. Typically charity would be defined in part as “generous actions”, where government handouts lose any and all religious value because once they are expected (both by receiver and giver) they are no longer seen as generous. There is something to be said about the personal giving of charity. A giver is giving more by taking his/her personal time to invest into another. And after all, in my experience, it is more that personal interest and time invested into a hurting or poor person that makes most of the difference. Its similar to the old saying, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” Government handouts is like giving a fish. It only feeds a momentary need, an whats worse, its expected the next day, developing a dependency. Proper charity in my opinion is investment into lives, aka, teaching a man to fish.
i think the welfare system (since this seems to be the bandwagon)…has a poor set up. granted, i think there should help in place for which struggling people can get out of a financial/job hole.
but i think there needs to be a system, where the gov. says something like, “ok joe-shmoe, you have 6 months to get a job a stablize your life, after that, welfare will not be offered to you. if you need help, here are a list of agencies that can. seek them out.”
this then puts the initiative in the hands of the person to get up and get moving. too many people become dependent on welfare, they rely on the system and they never improve. as a result, like i said, while the system should remain in place- it needs adjustment and limits.
the answer, i have come to find, in christianity and government, is both/and.
Ugh, it sounds good on paper, but I think history has played out enough examples for us to see the destructive results of religion hopping in bed with political power to try and fix the ills of the world.
I think most of you give government way too much credit for being able to do the right thing or being moral. Has anyone here read The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd? If not, you should as it will alter a discussion like this.
Dale, do you really think we need a theocracy (or your words, a “Christian Government”)?
-mike
Has a government ever really been anything corrupt? America never was or is a Christian nation. To say that it is the governments job to take care of the poor is nice but throughout history every government has only essentially had one job- to take care of it’s own interests (the poor are rarely if ever one of those interests). In establishing a Christian government we would cease to be Christian and just be a government in all it’s worldly glory. The oppressed becomes the oppressor. To affect social change, it is my opinion, that the church must act completely independently of any worldly system of authority. So maybe what’s truly absurd is not religious “right” or “left”, perhaps it is any “Christian” involvement in politics or government to begin with?
Furthermore…
@Ash- Wow. Spoken like a true person who has never had to rely on welfare. I can tell you from being raised on welfare, it’s a horribly flawed system. Much like everything it does, the government tends to do more damage than good. But I can also say this “Get a job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps” rhetoric is the most hateful ignorant bullshit I have ever heard. My mom worked three jobs to support us, she almost killed herself. She got hurt and had to rely on welfare. After that she couldn’t get off because it’s designed to keep people down. If you are dirt poor you get caught in a cycle. You have to be poor to get welfare but unless you can jump the extremely large gap from being dirt poor to being completely self reliant, you have to stay poor or starve. Just getting over the threshold of being poor means no welfare even though just getting over the threshold does not mean you can automatically afford housing, food, clothes, daycare, etc.
@Dale- I’m seeing this more and more prominently these days. This notion that a Christian government to replace the secular government would be a good thing. To be honest, it’s a little unnerving. Am I the only one who thinks this? Maybe we should go back and brush up on Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire and their little experiment with “Christian government”… or maybe we should just wait around for Joel’s Army to slaughter us and establish such a wonderful ideal.
Dear Chris (subversive church) …and Subversive Church , {is this the same person?}
Interesting name I am seeing a lot of these days” “subversive.” Subversive means to attempt to overthrow a government or some forms of Authority with the hopes of replacing that Authority with your own Authority. Even if that authority is completely anarchistic and autonomous. But I guess it is a cool word to use as an adjective with Church. I guess my only question is … what do you want to overthrow and what do you want to replace the void with?
Dale, do you really think we need a theocracy (or your words, a “Christian Government”)?
There is a difference between theocracy and “Christian Governments” We can get into this if we really need to, maybe I will post something else about it later. But to your question of “need.” Do we “need” a theocracy?
What else is there? I don’t believe in the post-enlightenment myth that you can have a purely humanistic government that doesn’t take sides. You are either going to have an Atheistic or Theistic government. A government will act as if it believes god(s) exists or does not. Then under Theistic governments you will have Buddhists, Hindus, Islamic, Christian, etc. Given the option of a post- Enlightenment atheistic government or a post-modern pantheistic (which is a reaction to the atheism of the Enlightenment) or another religious form of governing and I will chose a Christian government any day. .
Has a government ever really been anything corrupt?
Has there ever been a human person (besides Christ) who was not “corrupt”? No. But that does not mean we should wipe out human existence. Christ came to redeem everything including governments. Corruption will be in every facet of life, but that should not stop the Church from working with the Holy Spirit to redeem and restore things to their proper order in God.
America never was or is a Christian nation
That is a bold claim. I’m not exactly sure. I think that the founding fathers were torn on the issue of Christianity. We both could pile up quotes from some of the most influential American thinkers/founders that points to one direction or the other. And even some like Benjamin Franklin early on advocated a non-establishment position and then later seemed to favor it. There is a huge bit of ambiguity on this issue of America being a christian nation. However, America will have to either move in the direction of Christianity or atheism and there is no middle ground. That is why I believe that even if the founders were for no established religion in America then we must argue now that they were wrong….and seek to establish the Christian faith as the Religion of America as it is so now de facto the religion of the U.S.
So maybe what’s truly absurd is not religious “right” or “left”, perhaps it is any “Christian” involvement in politics or government to begin with?
I have to just make the point again that Christ came to redeem everything including Governments. To say that Christians should not be involved in government makes no sense. Then on has to say that God cares nothing about this world and how it is run. This views fails to take into consideration the principle political statement of the New Testament: Jesus Christ is Lord.
That is not some warm and fuzzy devotional mood or a bit of prepositional truths that grants mental assent to; it was and still is a radical challenge to all governments here on earth that they are subject to Christ. At the time that St. Paul was traveling the Roman Empire preaching Christ there was only one person who laid claim to being the Lord of the world: Caesar. And when St. Paul was going through Caesar’s Empire and preaching that Jesus of Nazareth was Lord it was a form of treason. That is why Christians were persecuted (much like those in the Middle East and Asia are today), because allegiance to Christ calls into question all authorities and subjugates them to Christ. All governments must answer to Christ and it is time the Church starts calling them on that.
Chris apart from all of this…..
This cycle that you speak of is exactly why I am for more government aid. It sucks being poor. I am fairly poor but I am at least able to pay the bills (from time to time). There is a whole lot more that can be done by the government right now for people.
Think about the tens of “Billions” of dollars that the government has giving these financial institutions to bail them out from bankruptcy. It is insane. The poor suffer dramatically and the rich get the bail-out. God help us.
Finally, I think there is a big mis-understanding of Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire. I would love for a revival of interests in those subjects to come about. Once again time limits my response.
I wish you all well.
Pax,
Br. Dale
I will expand further when time permits, but we are two people, Chris and Mike (me).
As far as the name is concerned, it isn’t about ‘being cool’, it was chosen for a purpose. My wife wasn’t too hip on it, as the meaning draws a line in the sand. While some definitions compare the word to political institutions, I think that is too narrow, as religious institutions are political as well. Therefore, yes, we do want to ‘overthrow’ the current system. It is flawed and unfortunately too many people can’t see beyond it. Like you said, “…I will chose a Christian government any day.”
Well, I won’t because it corrupts what Christ called us to do. If he wanted us to take over the institutions of man, then why did he subvert them himself? I have to bring up the temptation of Jesus and those things he turned down.
I’m sure Chris will have some further comments. In any case, I’m glad to see you responded as I liked what I had read. I may not be in agreement, but it is still good for conversation as Chris and I struggle with our thoughts on this area as well.
-mike