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

I would say the end of pluralism was a horrible thing for the Judeo-Christian tradition. It just cast away leading by example and showing people Christ in favor of making it illegal or immoral to believe in anything else.

That is not what pluralism is my friend. Allowing freedom of worship is not “pluralism.” There has always been a back and forth in Christian lands the ability to worship as you chose. A sad situation indeed when that is not allowed. But to encourage multiple religions and preach that they are all equal is a horrible thing indeed. That is pluralism. Freedom of worship and degenerated into pluralism and that my friend is sad as well. Because “freedom of worship” is a part of Christian government.


When you take away pluralism and tolerance in favor of one religion, in this case Christianity, Christianity becomes the ruler or oppressor of those who dissent. So in a sense by making Christ the oppressor instead of the savior and relief of those who are oppressed, you are making Jesus the enemy of the people who need him most. But if that is the goal, it has worked miraculously for over 1700 years!

I think all of these is non-sense. All I see is post-enlightenment rhetoric and ambiguous terms (pluralism and tolerance) based off of a fictitious historical narrative. You look at the conversion of Constantine as the worse thing in the world. A protestant/atheistic assumption. I see the Enlightenment as the worse thing to happen over the past two thousand years. There is no way to really speak to that right now. But I am sure it will flesh itself out through my posts.

Pax,
Br. Dale

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

@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.

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

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.

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.