Christianity too Political?

[spacemonkey]

In saying, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's", wasn't Jesus seeking a balance between politics and spirituality? Do you think his balancing act works in practice?

As a Gnostic I feel that it is attachment to matierial items that binds us to this plane and prohibits the attainment of Gnosis. This statement by Jesus just backs up the Gnostic belief that he was a Gnostic as well.

 

[Quiddity]

It wasn't known as Byzantium until AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern and Western Empires where ruled by TWO SEPARATE EMPERORS for the last two centuries. The ENTIRE empire (both halves) where still the ROMAN empire, in 350 AD (for example) you could be a Roman citizen even if you had never even SEEN the city of Rome. Constantine himself was born in modern day Turkey. In fact Constantinople became known as "New Rome". Please do some research. Here, I'll help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire
http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/ere.htm
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/LATE.HTM

that should get you started...

Only your 2nd link notes it as such. The others do not. The confusion comes in that most all churches were under Roman jurisdiction. Both politically and theologically.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

Hes saying dont be materialistic and political. Let Ceasar take what he wants, but let god have my children. Which by the way is bull***t. Sorry

Is he really saying, "Don't be materialistic and political", or is he really saying, "Keep the political and spiritual spheres in balance"?

 

[spacemonkey]

Only your 2nd link notes it as such. The others do not. The confusion comes in that most all churches were under Roman jurisdiction. Both politically and theologically.

~Victor

The Byzantine Empire is the term conventionally used to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centred at its capital in Constantinople. In certain specific contexts, usually referring to the time before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it is also often referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire

That is the first sentance from the first link I provided, did you skip over it?

 

[Quiddity]

I don't understand how government is digging into a Church tenent? And I have never understood why the injunction to go and preach is twisted into forming/reforming society. The message has always had media avenues to reach the public (at least in this country) but is not convincing enough to avoid rejection by many in and outside of Christianity. We're not all of one denomination if we even have one.

I know that, but just like you are constantly trying to reform goverment policies to fit your secular views, so is the Church.

What some religious groups, in petition to government, is cover a basic weakness in faith, either general or specific, by force of law. Our government, evidenced in the First Amendment, was specifically set up to avoid such coersion.

I disagree. I think it was intended to have the people choose above all. Not that religions don't have any influence. Most people back then were religious and it would make no sense if "religion" was to stay out.

The question is - why are some religions persistently trying to convert by law those that have rejected the message? I think it is a tacit admission of failure on the part of politico-religious groups.

To convert is to fully associate yourself to that religion. Passing abortion laws and such do not do such a thing.

~Victor

 

[Darkdale]

Has Christianity become too politicalized? Are political issues such as gay marriage, abortion, teenage pregnancy, our policy in Iraq, and such crowding out basic spirituality in many churches? Is Christianity focusing too much on trying to change society and too little on traditional concerns, such as salvation? Or has Christianity always been a politcalized religion and this is nothing new? What do you think?

That has nothing to do with Christians. It has to do with culture.

 

[Quiddity]

That is the first sentance from the first link I provided, did you skip over it?

No I didn't. You have to understand that Eastern Orthodoxy is not in union with Rome. They are considered the East. And when they note "Eastern Roman Empire" it was only to emphasize that they were in communion with Rome. See what I mean?

~Victor

 

[Valjean]

Both religion and politics are concerned with social organization, ethics and the moral standards that affect them, so their areas of interest are largely the same. Sometimes religion will monopolize one or the other of these areas of interest, sometimes government will.
In early Jewish or Islamic societies "government," and "religion" were essentially synonymous.
A thousand years ago the Roman church largely monopolized morals, ethics and social organization in Western Europe. Today in the West social organization is largely the purview of a secular government, morality of religion, and ethical conduct a shared concern.

As long as religion and secular government share the same areas of concern, there will be a certain degree of competition.

 

[Quiddity]

As long as religion and secular government share the same areas of concern, there will be a certain degree of competition.

Rrrrrright.....but I always get confused why they call it a "secular" society when most of the Americans are theist. I don't get it.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

What do you think of the notion that too much political involvement leads to a superficial spirituality. I think of Pat Robertson, for instance. He's very politically involved, but is a joke when it comes to spirituality, IMHO.

 

[Valjean]

It also occurs to me that popular, as opposed to philosophical religion, usually seems to operate in league with secular government to preserve the social status quo and current standards of propriety.

Religion will emphasize, de-emphasize or ignore certain scriptural teachings in an effort to maintain these standards, and will condemn those who promulgate heterodox interpretations or practices.

 

[Quiddity]

What do you think of the notion that too much political involvement leads to a superficial spirituality. I think of Pat Robertson, for instance. He's very politically involved, but is a joke when it comes to spirituality, IMHO.

That's why I said earlier that the Catholic Church only get's involved when issues cross over. Pat, I think, goes over board.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Religion will emphasize, de-emphasize or ignore certain scriptural teachings in an effort to maintain these standards, and will condemn those who promulgate heterodox interpretations or practices.

I think you should note that as "interpretations" rather then "teachings".

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

That's why I said earlier that the Catholic Church only get's involved when issues cross over. Pat, I think, goes over board.

~Victor

Would you call Pat Robertson a "false prophet" for leading people away from the spiritual message in Christianity?

 

[Valjean]

I think you should note that as "interpretations" rather then "teachings".

~Victor

Point well taken, Victor, but it follows that they tend to teach these interpretations du jour.

 

[Ormiston]

Has Christianity become too politicalized? Are political issues such as gay marriage, abortion, teenage pregnancy, our policy in Iraq, and such crowding out basic spirituality in many churches? Is Christianity focusing too much on trying to change society and too little on traditional concerns, such as salvation? Or has Christianity always been a politcalized religion and this is nothing new? What do you think?

I think there is a fine line between taking care of yourself and worrying about what others do. As far as an answer to the question Christianity too political?, I think no. The first great story in the bible and the event which, IMO, is mainly responsible for the health of Christianity/Judaism today is the Exodus. Can there be a more political application of any religion than the preservation and freedom of an entire nation? Then take the New Testament. The political implications of the crucifixion are mind-boggling. So, in my mind, the issues presented are miniscule when compared to the arenas Christianity/Judaism has gone before.

 

[Sunstone]

So, Ormiston, are you saying that Christianity has always been a politicalized religion and that politics is intrinsic to Christian spirituality? Or, am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Green Gaia]

Has Christianity become too politicalized? Are political issues such as gay marriage, abortion, teenage pregnancy, our policy in Iraq, and such crowding out basic spirituality in many churches? Is Christianity focusing too much on trying to change society and too little on traditional concerns, such as salvation? Or has Christianity always been a politcalized religion and this is nothing new? What do you think?

Some of the same questions are asked about UU, and not without reason.

 

[Ormiston]

So, Ormiston, are you saying that Christianity has always been a politicalized religion and that politics is intrinsic to Christian spirituality? Or, am I misunderstanding you?

I think politics is very clearly intrinsic to Christian spirituality. The Bible is not a book of metaphors and myths. It is written as fact and history. It is a book of instruction on how to live, how to treat your neighbor, how to punish law-breakers. The rules are clearly spelled out. The stories are presented as history. The consequences are exact. It is not intended to help you find inner peace, it is intended to instruct people on how to behave. In fact, it is political right down to the end with consequences for your actions affecting your afterlife experience. I've always thought that this tangible, direct, applicable nature of Christianity/Judaism is what gives it its permanence. The bible doesn't read like myth, it reads like a history book and this removes much of the "fable" aspects that have condemned many other religions to the comical.

 

[Sunstone]

I think politics is very clearly intrinsic to Christian spirituality. The Bible is not a book of metaphors and myths. It is written as fact and history. It is a book of instruction on how to live, how to treat your neighbor, how to punish law-breakers. The rules are clearly spelled out. The stories are presented as history. The consequences are exact. It is not intended to help you find inner peace, it is intended to instruct people on how to behave. In fact, it is political right down to the end with consequences for your actions affecting your afterlife experience. I've always thought that this tangible, direct, applicable nature of Christianity/Judaism is what gives it its permanence. The bible doesn't read like myth, it reads like a history book and this removes much of the "fable" aspects that have condemned many other religions to the comical.

Pity I can't frubal you twice in one day! I agree that Christian spirituality has an intrinsic political component. So, the question becomes for me whether someone can fully participate in Christian spirituality if they are apolitical? Is politics necessary to living a full Christian spiritual life?