Christians: Christianity is too involved with politics

[tomspug]

If there's one major flaw with American Christianity (pff, one flaw) it's how poorly involved it is within its own communities, with its neighbors, friends and family. I strongly believe that it is a church's responsibility to care for the needs of anyone that comes to it and be a city on a hill for its community. What does this mean? Be more pious and impressive than everybody else? No, it means that if the church were to ever leave, the community would MISS it. It would leave a gaping hole where a pillar of the community once was.

Instead, we like to live vicariously through missions to other countries (which aren't bad in and of themselves, but...) we miss all of the needs of people that live next door to us. Yes, they may not all be impoverished, but they might be spiritually and emotionally in need. But we assume, since so many Christians embrace the idea that wealth is necessary as much as any non-Christian (have you SEEN those mega-churches?) that we are somehow NOT NEEDED at home, that we focus almost entirely on our own spiritual development, waiting for GOD to prompt us to action, rather than the spirit that is supposedly constantly within us.

What does this have to do with politics? Everything. Christians make themselves feel important by attaching themselves to political issues. We feel that if we vote, we are making a difference for a cause "greater than ourselves", as if large issues, because they affect more people, are more important to God than the ones that affect less people.

We like to say that making a difference to one person is more important than making a small impact on the lives of thousands, but we don't believe that, do we? We don't care about the soul nearly as much as we like to pretend. We like to see HARD, PHYSICAL RESULTS. We like to see larger church attendance, bigger churches, and yes, we like to see our candidates win. ;-)

Of course it is important to vote, but for the same reasons that everyone else votes: to have your voice heard, not to help God win elections. Let's say that this new push for Roe v. Wade being overturned fails. Did God lose? Think about that.

 

[Charity]

I agree with you Tom. I am not using this word to be funny because it is my name but I have always said "Charity" begins at home....Instead of sending money to foreign missions and people that we don't even know if they really receive what we send them. We have elderly, disabled, homeless people in our own communities that we could be helping. I think God would be more interested in how we take care of our own. We can make a difference to those around us, at least we can tell their needs and see if we are in effect helping them. Scripture tells us about helping others. I'm not saying not to help others outside our country. I think it's time "we" the church show a better example of love and compassion and share our love for God by understanding and support of those less fortunate. Building large buildings for show and only having services a few times a week, is a waste, when there are people who need food, clothing, shelter and medicine.
The course of our destiny according to Revelation, will not be changed by preaching politics or Bible thumping within the political arena. Why don't we live for now and let each person make a decision based on their own conclusions. If the Christians will put God first then we have nothing to fear. He has it all covered

 

[tomspug]

I said this on another thread, but would we really want Jesus to be elected to an office of power? How is that any different than the Pharisees (and current Jews) wanting the Messiah to be a ruler that rules over the "political" world? A theocracy?

Following Jesus is about being Christ to others through ourselves. Now, if I felt compelled to run for office, that's one thing, but most of us don't feel that way.

 

[ChristineES]

We already know that any religion (including Christianity) is completely incompatible with any politics and any government. We obey the laws of the land and pay our taxes and vote and that's about it. Praying for government is needed (desperately). Jesus would never dream of running for any office.

 

[Dunemeister]

We already know that any religion (including Christianity) is completely incompatible with any politics and any government. We obey the laws of the land and pay our taxes and vote and that's about it. Praying for government is needed (desperately). Jesus would never dream of running for any office.

Not at all. Christianity always has been highly political. If Jesus is Lord, Bush isn't. And that has political ramifications. The relationship of Christians to the state is complicated -- too complicated for oversimplifications such as "complete incompatibility" or "complete integration."

 

[Mister Emu]

I think God would be more interested in how we take care of our own.

I think God would be equally interested in who we consider our own...

Building large buildings for show and only having services a few times a week, is a waste, when there are people who need food, clothing, shelter and medicine.

I happen to agree, I don't think a church needs a starbucks in it or anything like that... but what would you have a church with an inspiring preacher do when they can fill a football stadium?

I said this on another thread, but would we really want Jesus to be elected to an office of power?

Jesus is already in ultimate seat of power

 

[Quiddity]

I said this on another thread, but would we really want Jesus to be elected to an office of power? How is that any different than the Pharisees (and current Jews) wanting the Messiah to be a ruler that rules over the "political" world? A theocracy?

Following Jesus is about being Christ to others through ourselves. Now, if I felt compelled to run for office, that's one thing, but most of us don't feel that way.

Amen!

However...being Christ to others entails what exactly? Would I be Christ to the world if I stayed quiet about abortion? Because we all know that objecting to abortion is then end of secularism as we know it! Theocracy is sure to result...

Seriously though, what does it entail exactly?

 

[tomspug]

I happen to agree, I don't think a church needs a starbucks in it or anything like that... but what would you have a church with an inspiring preacher do when they can fill a football stadium?

Easy. Start more churches, teach others to lead, and GROW "the church" not "your church". Is it the ideal of Christianity to have as few churches and pastors as possible with as much people in them as possible?

 

[tomspug]

Amen!

However...being Christ to others entails what exactly? Would I be Christ to the world if I stayed quiet about abortion? Because we all know that objecting to abortion is then end of secularism as we know it! Theocracy is sure to result...

Seriously though, what does it entail exactly?

I also said this in another thread, that I feel it is a personal obligation to vote (unless you like being 100% self-reliant). Give unto Caesar, and all that. But isn't the true mission in the hearts and minds of those who we are most able to touch? The people we see at work, our neighbors, our friends and family, chance encounters in the public where the Holy Spirit strikes?

 

[Dunemeister]

I also said this in another thread, that I feel it is a personal obligation to vote (unless you like being 100% self-reliant). Give unto Caesar, and all that. But isn't the true mission in the hearts and minds of those who we are most able to touch? The people we see at work, our neighbors, our friends and family, chance encounters in the public where the Holy Spirit strikes?

No. The "true mission" is to "proclaim the wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places." Christian mission crucially involves confronting the powers that be, not complacently serving their wishes or just going along with things to save "souls."

 

[tomspug]

No. The "true mission" is to "proclaim the wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places." Christian mission crucially involves confronting the powers that be, not complacently serving their wishes or just going along with things to save "souls."

Care to quote Jesus on that?

 

[Dunemeister]

Care to quote Jesus on that?

I quoted Paul. Isn't that enough?

 

[tomspug]

No. It most certainly isn't. Paul is commentary on Christ. It is not the law, and Paul never claimed for his words to be the law either. His books are like sermons, they are elaboration and interpretation. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, but they are in no way nearly as authoritative (if at all) compared to Jesus, who did not say a single thing to support your view of "religious priorities".

 

[michel]

If there's one major flaw with American Christianity (pff, one flaw) it's how poorly involved it is within its own communities, with its neighbors, friends and family. I strongly believe that it is a church's responsibility to care for the needs of anyone that comes to it and be a city on a hill for its community. What does this mean? Be more pious and impressive than everybody else? No, it means that if the church were to ever leave, the community would MISS it. It would leave a gaping hole where a pillar of the community once was.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the pattern you mention above - that of the poor involvement in the local community by "The Church" (or the members of the congregation), can be blamed on religion.

Here in England, even monist Christian Communities (but maybe slightly less so), there is a definite trend towards a lack of community spirit; people (in general) are far more insular than they were (let's say) fifty years ago.

A good example is the neighbourhood in which we live - we have a house in a cul de sac. When my parents first moved here in 1977, everyone one who lived in the street knew everyone else. When we moved in (my wife and I), in 1990, the community spirit was still there - regular parties at each other's houses, neighbours helping each other etc........At that time, there were two or three men (I was one amongst them) who were quite happy to go and replace faulty wiring in other's houses - anything that came under the heading of "DIY".

Since then, we have seen a turn around in maybe 50% of the houses; the "new" people are happy to wave as they pass by, but that is the limit of their involvement. I guess their lives are more demanding, and they have less time for neighbours (I am sure that life is far more demanding now than it was when I married - it is very unusual now not to see both husband and wife working - it is almost impossible for one wage to be sufficient for the household).

What does this have to do with politics? Everything. Christians make themselves feel important by attaching themselves to political issues. We feel that if we vote, we are making a difference for a cause "greater than ourselves", as if large issues, because they affect more people, are more important to God than the ones that affect less people.

That is something (thank goodness) which is far less noticeable here than in the States; religion has far less impact on the country as a whole - except in that, we English "Pot pourri at the best" have to bend over backwards to be seen to accommodate those of other religions; P.C rules O.K...........

We like to say that making a difference to one person is more important than making a small impact on the lives of thousands, but we don't believe that, do we? We don't care about the soul nearly as much as we like to pretend. We like to see HARD, PHYSICAL RESULTS. We like to see larger church attendance, bigger churches, and yes, we like to see our candidates win. ;-)

Thanfully, we have no "mega Churches" here; and the small Churches that we have only have a handful of "regulars" on Sundays - which (to me) is another sign of the disappearance of the "community" spirit.

 

[tomspug]

Well, we have plenty of churches like that in the US too, but I think the problem isn't so much a lack of spirit, but the inability of the church to change. We assume that, because we as humans DON'T like change, that religion should be stagnant, unwavering. But why should a simple message for all people not be able to adapt to different cultures, different walks of life? The truth seems to be that the church simply fails to be relevant.

And in an attempt to BE relevant, modern Christianity has latched on to pop-culture, which is the worst choice they could make. We now embrace the high-octane, technological nature of our society as a means to stay relevant. But the real relevance we need is to take a look around us at the people who aren't coming into church and asking "how can I reach them"? To often, our response to non-attendence is "what can we do to get them to come in, because once they come in, they're sure to convert!"

Maybe it's our message, not our method, that needs to change. Not changing our beliefs, but changing our religion, our traditions, appreciating the old, but inviting the new.

OK, obviously, I'm off topic, but I thought I'd mention this, because this is a serious problem with today's church. We've developed this mentality that it is somehow God's responsibility to get people into the pews and for us to preach, but maybe we're not supposed to always be preaching in church. Maybe we should be starting community programs. Maybe we should be holding youth events that give youth a safe place to go where they can feel comfortable. Maybe we should play music that people will actually want to listen to.

When did religion become a spoon in mouth mentality? I picture society as hands, constantly reaching out for help. Maybe they would reach out to us if they believed we were offering what they needed. Maybe we don't even see that they are reaching out at all, even though they are.

 

[Dunemeister]

No. It most certainly isn't. Paul is commentary on Christ. It is not the law, and Paul never claimed for his words to be the law either. His books are like sermons, they are elaboration and interpretation. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, but they are in no way nearly as authoritative (if at all) compared to Jesus, who did not say a single thing to support your view of "religious priorities".

Paul's writings are just as authoritative as the evangelists. Recall that Jesus never wrote anything, so the gospels themselves are also commentary. In other words, if Paul is not authoritative because he's commentary on Jesus, then neither are the gospels because they are, too. It's also salient to point out that Paul is an EARLIER witness to Jesus than the gospels in the sense that his writings predate the gospels. Of course, I'd argue that the traditions contained in the gospels go back to Jesus; nevertheless, the gospel writers creatively reworked Jesus' history and teachings to compose their gospels. Thus, they're commentary. So Paul is at no disadvantage compared to the evangelists.

But to satisfy your question, I'd point out that the Sermon on the Mount constitutes a political agenda designed to confront the powers that be -- Roman and Jewish -- of Jesus' day. In an age where the Jewish powers sought to violently shake off the Roman yoke, Jesus urged them to make peace with their adversary, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and rejoice under persecution. In an age of economic exploitation from Jewish and Roman overlords, Jesus tells them to forgive each others' debts. The result of this would be a new kind of community, one whose very existence would constitute a threat to the powers that be. The evidence for this of course is that ALL the powers, Roman and Jewish, sought and achieved Jesus' death. One confronts the powers at their own risk.

 

[sojourner]

Tom's point is well taken! The Church should not be so concerned about making policy as it should be with education and aid. for example, what good does it really do to overturn Roe v. Wade? If that happens, the only abortions we shall have will be illegal and dangerous ones. Stupid, mentally handicapped, and desperate women will still throw themselves down flights of stairs and jam knitting needles into places not designed for them in order to terminate pregnancies. As Christians, the answer doesn't lie in outlawing abortion; the answer lies in helping those who find themselves in impossible positions to make good decisions, and to give them aid where they really need it.

IMO, Christians waste too much time and energy with policy, and do not spend enough time and energy in ministry.

 

[tomspug]

Paul's writings are just as authoritative as the evangelists. Recall that Jesus never wrote anything, so the gospels themselves are also commentary. In other words, if Paul is not authoritative because he's commentary on Jesus, then neither are the gospels because they are, too. It's also salient to point out that Paul is an EARLIER witness to Jesus than the gospels in the sense that his writings predate the gospels. Of course, I'd argue that the traditions contained in the gospels go back to Jesus; nevertheless, the gospel writers creatively reworked Jesus' history and teachings to compose their gospels. Thus, they're commentary. So Paul is at no disadvantage compared to the evangelists.

But to satisfy your question, I'd point out that the Sermon on the Mount constitutes a political agenda designed to confront the powers that be -- Roman and Jewish -- of Jesus' day. In an age where the Jewish powers sought to violently shake off the Roman yoke, Jesus urged them to make peace with their adversary, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and rejoice under persecution. In an age of economic exploitation from Jewish and Roman overlords, Jesus tells them to forgive each others' debts. The result of this would be a new kind of community, one whose very existence would constitute a threat to the powers that be. The evidence for this of course is that ALL the powers, Roman and Jewish, sought and achieved Jesus' death. One confronts the powers at their own risk.

Paul never wrote any gospels. He wrote letters. He did not document the life and teachings of Jesus, he was an apologist and an evangelist. To say that the literalism of "letters" is AS authoritative as the gospels is nonsense. To understand Paul's letters, there is a sense of context that is absolutely necessary: who was Paul's audience? What were his intentions in writing this letter? Is this actually applicable to Christianity as a whole?

I am not debunking Paul as not being authoritative. I am saying that not EVERYTHING that he wrote is authoritative.

And I see no reference at all to the Roman government in the Sermon on the Mount. It is no more applicable to interaction with the government than interaction with your neighbor or your mother.

 

[Minister_E]

Not even really digging spiritually...but this country was founded on Biblical principals Im sure the founders of this country would totally disagree with the statement about Christianity is too involved in polotics far from it we just need to approach it in a more Christ like manner

 

[Father Heathen]

Not even really digging spiritually...but this country was founded on Biblical principals Im sure the founders of this country would totally disagree with the statement about Christianity is too involved in polotics far from it we just need to approach it in a more Christ like manner

Check the first link in my signature.