The Christian

Published on May 2021 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 1 | Comments: 0 | Views: 15
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

The Christian & Politics Has the Contemporary Church Become Obsessed With Political Solutions? Erkel, Darryl 

Are Christianity and politics compatible? Can individual Christians ever involve themselves in the political arena for the betterment of society? Should Sh ould the Church look to the power of politics to affect moral reform within America? Such questions are important impo rtant for us to consider,  particularly since evangelicals are growing more fond of political strategies strategies to combat the rising tide of secular humanism. We believe that the following points may help to clarify the b believer’s eliever’s relationship to government and politics.  

,

, ,

,

. 3

,

3 .

,

 

)1

. ,

,

.

.)92-139

( ,

,  

.

.

. .

,

!

)1:31 ,

(

1. Christians may involve themselves in the political arena as individuals individuals,, but it is not the place of the Church (corporately speaking) to change chan ge political/governmental institutions. Our Lord has not given His Church a political agenda, but a spiritual mandate to proclaim the Gospel and disciple the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Such a mandate m andate far transcends any political or cultural mission. Interestingly, the early church, living under a much more oppressive government than we in America, willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to form a p political olitical party or change Roman laws. They Th ey refused to allow any political crusade to tak takee priority over the

 

Gospel. They had a heavenly mission and eternal goals as opposed to temporal ones. They weren’t were n’t merely interested in making a better  better society; society; they wanted to completely transform it with the message of the Gospel. If the Gospel is truly "the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), why would we preach anything else? Why are so many sincere, but misguided Christians today, down-playing the centrality of the Gospel for a message of moral reform through political action? Have not our priorities become rather mixed?   2. As ambassadors for Christ, we are not to disobey civil government (except, (ex cept, of course, when they compel us to disobey God’s Word –  – Acts Acts 5:29), but subject ourselves to it (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17) and pray pra y for such rulers and authorities so that we might live a tranquil life (1 Timothy 2:1-2) 

 –  , 9-13

( , 7-131 ,

 

,

(

.)

)9

3 93  )17-139 

)9-139

(

3. We must understand that spiritual results can only be achieved through spiritual means means.. Genuine moral reform will never come by merely changing laws, but by changing the hearts and minds of people. This means that we must recover the art of persuasion (although, ultimately, it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict humans humans –   – John John 16:8). As evangelicals, out greatest power is not found in protest, but in Gospel proclamation  – for,  – for, indeed, if the Gospel is truly "the power of God unto u nto salvation" (Romans 1:16), why would w wee ever turn to political rhetoric and ideology?  

.

) .

"

.)31:  – 

"

,

(

, , !

,)1:31

(

Strange as it may sound to some, the problems we face in America toda today y are not primarily  political even moral,nobut theological It is because are alienated from a holy Godorand possess knowledge of and Himspiritual. and His ways, that wepeople are experiencing massive hedonism within our land. The remedy, remed y, therefore, must be primarily theological and spiritual. This, no political or moral crusade can ever ev er rectify. The great apostle to the Gentiles has said it well: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of  our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses" (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; cf. Ephesians 6:10-18). As a political insider and former presidential aide to Richard Nixon, we would be wise to listen to the words of Charles W. Colson:  

"

 – 

 – 

"

, !

,

, ,

, .

 

Today’s misspent enthusiasm for political solutions to the moral problems of our culture arises from a distorted view of both politics and Christianity –  Christianity  – too too low a view of the power of a sovereign God and too high a view of the ability of man. The idea that human systems, reformed  by Christian influence, pave the road to the Kingdom –  Kingdom – or or at least, to revival –  revival – has has the same utopian ring that one finds in Marxist literature. It also ignores the consistent lesson of history that shows that laws are most often reformed as a result of powerful spiritual movements (not vice versa). I know of no case where a spiritual movement was achieved by passing laws ("The Power Illusion." Power Illusion." Power Religion, Religion, ed. Michael S. Horton [Chicago: Moody Press, 1992] p.32). 4. In voicing our opinions and beliefs to those in government, we must never adopt an "in your  face" attitude. Ar rogance rogance and shouting down one’s political opponent may be the way of the world, but it is not the way of o f Christ. We are, instead, to reply with "discretion and discernment" as did Daniel to Arioch (Daniel 2:14). We are to manifest the kind of respectful demeanor which Paul displayed before Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26; cf. Titus 3:1-2; Colossians 4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:15). Regardless of our personal feelings towards our political leaders, we are commanded to "honor the King" (1 Peter Pe ter 2:17).

. "

"

, ,

)4 .

,

5. We must not view any country or human government as our ultimate home –  home – "for "for our  citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). For the time being, we are "strangers and exiles on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13; cf. 1 Peter 2:11). We are looking forward to a "h "heavenly eavenly country" (v.16) and God Himself has promised to prepare a city for us (v.16). This being true, wh why y would we so entangle ourselves in the affairs of this world that we forget our heavenly country and the Divine mandate which Christ has given to His Church? 6. We should not be ignorant of the major political and cultural controversies of our day. As evangelicals, we are called to use our minds for the glory of God and to test all issues, whether  religious or political, by the standard of Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). At the same time, however, we must recognize reco gnize that the Bible will not always be as clear or direct

in addressing the issues currently Thus,of"we should have Christian approaches to  politics, recognizing thatwe there will beface. a variety these, but we should not expect to produce ‘the Christian political program’" (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America [Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989] p.139). p .139). 7. Because of God’s common grace, Christians Ch ristians can work with unbelievers in attempting to  promote justice and civic peace –  peace – and and we can do so not only because it is good for believers and religious liberty, but because it is good for all people peo ple (Galatians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Writing on this very matter, the authors of The of  The Search for Christian America have stated:

Some Christians speak as though there is an absolute antithesis between Christian and nonChristian thought, neglecting the degree to which Christians themselves are hampered by sin and error, and the degree to which God’s common grace allows substantial room for communication and cooperation among all people in practical everyday life . . . Because we all live in God’s

 

world, we have, in God’s common grace, some basis for discussing discussing and shaping public policy without explicit appeal to the Bible. In fact, people pe ople from all nations of the world ha have ve been able to agree on many principles of justice and human interest, as for instance, in agencies and statements of the United Nations. That they violently violen tly disagree on other points or on the application of their common principles should not obscure o bscure this degree of commonality. So Christians and non-Christians may be able to agree on the value of charity toward the poor and the starving, on the undesirability of genocide, that literacy should be encouraged, on the virtue of loyalty to friends and parents, and on many other things (pp.135-136). 8. Since the arrival of Christ, we must not look upon any nation as God’s chosen nation or even upon America as a "Christian nation." "The New Testament teaches unmistakably that Christ set aside national and ethnic barriers and that He has chosen to fulfill His central purposes in history through the Church, which transcends all such boundaries . . . Th Thee Lord of history has not aligned His purposes with the particular values of any an y given country or civilization" (The ( The Search  for Christian America, America, p.24).

churches urches for  9. The evangelical church of the 50s and 60s rightly criticized the liberal ch abandoning its responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and, turning instead, to the "social gospel." Ironically, evangelicals today are doing the very same thing which they condemned liberal churches for doing by seeking to better society, not through Gospel proclamation and intelligent discussion of biblical truth, but through political power strategies, legislation, and efforts to move the unbelieving majority to live like Christians. It seems that our primary concern is not with accurately accu rately preaching a God-centered Gospel and its implications for both pagans and believers, but with abortion, a bortion, traditional values, and a romanticized view of America as a "Christian nation." While these might be important issues, it is not the Gospel nor is it a message that mankind most needs to hear. How said it is that some Christians are more versed in conservative politics than in the writings of both the Old and New Testament’s. Evangelicals need not repent of their involvement  their  involvement in in politics per se, but only of their  obsession with it. As Charles W. Colson has said: That’s one of the weaknesses of the evangelical movement today – that – that it is so obsessed  obsessed with with  politics. It passing believeslaws. that there’s got toabe a political solution to everything everything . .That’s . You don’t change a culture by You change culture by changing chan ging people’s habits. why the Gospel is so central to the possibilities of cultural reformation in American life (Interview, "Running the Race," Rutherford  Race," Rutherford [Journal], [Journal], August 1996, p.15). 10. We must remember that political solutions are not ultimate, but temporal. We cannot afford to look to human government governmen t (even the best ones) for providing the final answers to the moral  problems that we face. For that, we must look to Scripture and the God who is portrayed within its pages. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3); "Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength’" (Jeremiah 17:5). What Some Christian Leaders Are Saying About Bringing America Back to God (with my response):

 

1. Robert Dugan, Director of the National Association of Evangelicals’ Office of Public Affairs,  believes that he can offer a strategy for "those who want to reshape society through the political  process" (Winning (Winning the New Civil War , p.88).

The above statement is theologically naïve  –  for when has any society been reshaped for   spiritual and moral good through the "political process"? Genuine moral reform will simply simply never come through the "political " political process", but only through lives transformed by the sovereign hand of God working through the greatest message in human history: The Gospel of Jesus Christ.   Christ. 2. Randall Terry has said, "If righteousness is going to prevail; if paganism is going to be turned back, then we must mu st move to restore this nation to be being ing a Christian Nation. Otherwise, we will lose the war for America’s soul, and the United States as we know it will perish. And if we are going to reform and rebuild our ou r country, we’re going to have to d deliberately eliberately infiltrate the  power bases of America. We’ll deliberately have to raise up men like John Adams and Teddy Roosevelt to be morally correct, not politically correct statesmen" (Why ( Why Does A Nice Guy Like  Me Keep Getting Thrown in Jail? pp.80-81).

Terry naively assumes that righteousness will prevail only when America is i s restored to being a "Christian Nation." But, again, like so many Christians involved in the contemporary "culture war," he has failed to learn the lesson of history which teaches that political power p ower and  legislation can never truly reform the human heart. Terry also wrongly assumes that America was a "Christian Nation." While America has, indeed, been influenced by Christian values, it has never truly been a "Christian "C hristian Nation," unless, of course, we wish to water-down the theological  meaning of the term "Christian" and reduce it to one which merely deno denotes tes common morality and virtue. The only "Christian Nation" that the New Testament speaks of are those who have been spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit Sp irit (Matthew 21:43; 1 Peter 2:9) and who reside  –   not simply in the United States  –  but in every country and region of the world (Revelation 5:9; 7:9). One further point. Contrary to what Terry and an d others may believe, God ha hass not called us to convert whole nations  –  nor is our "success" dependent upon doing so. We are, indeed, called to  faithfully and accurately proclaim thecan Gospel to those are unregenerate, but we are not  1 expected to convert them  –  only God do that (Johnwho 1:12-13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:15-18; Corinthians 1:30; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 1:18). Thus, we w e are called to be faithful to the message of the Gospel, not necessarily numerically successful in "results" " results" (as commonly defined)  –  for it is God alone who adds to His Church (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7; 3:6 -7; Colossians 2:19).  2:19).  Evidence that the Early Church Did Not Have A Political Agenda: 1. We need to remember that the first-century period had many of the same problems that we have today (abortion, crime, drunkenness, immorality, poverty, corrupt and evil rulers, etc.), yet they never pursued any form fo rm of moral reform through political action, nor did they align with the numerous political/social zealots existing at that time who wanted to either reform or overthrow

Rome. They had, undoubtedly, every reason to do so, but never did.

 

2. Because the early church recognized that man’s greatest problem was sin and, thus, the remedy was spiritual in nature, they did not preoccupy themselves with making a society, that was under God’s judgment, outwardly virtuous virtuous –   – but, but, instead, concentrated their efforts on faithfully articulating the Gospel and living lives which demonstrated the reality of their claims (1 Peter 2:11-17). 3. Because Jesus Himself taught that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36); because

the early Christians recognized that "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh," but spiritual in nature (2 Corinthians 10:3-4); because they recognized reco gnized that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood," but against demonic forces (Ephesians 6:12); because they recognized that their true citizenship was in heaven (Philippians 3:20); because they viewed themselves as "strangers and aliens" within this world (1 Peter 2:11); and because bec ause they desired a "heavenly "heavenl y country" (Hebrews 11:16), they did not concentrate con centrate their efforts to pursue political action or even social reform (although the early church did seek to provide for the poor). The They y had set their  minds upon heavenly realities and eternal goals, rather than seeking to apply temporary bandages upon a society that was destined to eternal judgment. Contrary to what some critics might assume, this was not a case of being "so heavenly-minded heavenly -minded that they were no earthly good." good. " It was, instead, a clear indication that their priorities were in order. It must be kept in mind that the early Christians still sought to minister to the physical needs of people (Mt. 26:8-9; Acts 6:1; Galatians 2:10; 1 Timothy 6:18; Titus 3:14). Thus, the they y were not guilty of neglecting the physical ph ysical and necessary aspects of man under the guise of a false  piety. Even still, this was a far cry from any form form of political action and even further from the modern day "social gospel" which seeks to place any political or social cause under the banner of  the Gospel. 4. The early Christians of the first century lived under a much more oppressive government than we in America, and yet they willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to form a  political party or even change Roman laws that they deemed immoral. They had much more  justification for doing so than we in America, but never did. 5. When both Paul and Peter dealt with the issue of slavery in their respective epistles (Philemon

and 1 Peter did not, ineir any way,  – even encourage Christians towe revolt against slavery, but 2:18-20), to remainthey obedient to their th masters –  masters even cruel ones! But must ask, ifthe theevils earlyof  church possessed such political and social zealotry, why didn’t they begin a labor party to protect the rights of slaves? Why didn’t they gather all of the t he runaway slaves and form a protest p rotest march all the way to Rome? Even if one argues that this would not have been feasible under the tyrannical government government of Rome, couldn’t they have done something more than to simply encourage slaves to remain obedient to their masters and endure their abuse? To those who  possess the mindset that all, or at least most, of our problems problems can be solved through the political  process, this does not make much sense. But to those who possess the mind of Christ and who recognize the inherent limitations of political/social action, it is Divine wisdom. 6. When Christians were being slandered and persecuted by b y their pagan neighbors, nei ghbors, Peter didn’t suggest that the Christians start a "Christian Anti-Defamation League," but instead, encouraged encoura ged

them to "patiently endure it" and to not retaliate (1 Peter 2:12-21; 3 3:13-17; :13-17; 4:3-4, 12-19). Does

 

this sound like the kind of advice that would come from one who was politically oriented? Would the current leaders of the "Religious Right" encourage en courage their followers to do the same? gove rning authorities on several 7. It’s interesting to note that when Paul stood before the governing occasions, he never once engaged such rulers in political or social discourse. No doubt, these instances were grand opportunities for him to complain about such social evils as slavery and excessive taxes, yet he apparently never did. Why would Paul, if he was indeed so politically minded, allow such golden opportunities to pass p ass by? Instead, as in the case of Felix recorded in Acts 24:24-25, we find him speaking to this ruler about faith in Christ, righteousness, selfcontrol, and the judgment to come! Was Paul, in this instance, guilty of being so heavenlyminded that he was no earthly good? Shouldn’t he have argued vigorously for human rights and social reform (issues which would have affected a broader range of people), than simply limit his discussion to soteriological matters? Once again, where the political po litical zealot sees a missed opportunity, the discerning believer sees fidelity to the Gospel and priorities that are in order. Evidence that America is Not, Nor Was Founded, As A "Christian Nation": 1. The founding of our country was a mixed bag of both of both Christian and Enlightenment influences. To say that it was solely was  solely Christian ideas and influences which shaped the founding fo unding of the United States, is to be naïve of American history. 2. While some of our founding fathers were Christians, many of them were not. For instance, John Adams opposed the doctrine d octrine of the Trinity and spoke of the deity of Christ as "this awful  blasphemy" which it was necessary to get rid of. Thomas Jefferson, likewise, was antisupernaturalistic, eventually producing his own version of the Bible which jettisoned all of the recorded miracles –  miracles – including including the resurrection! James Madison believed that the government should in no way sanction national days of prayer. The truth is, while all of the founding fathers  believed in a Divine Creator, they did not necessarily adhere to distinctly Christians ideas about Him –  Him  – nor nor did they all believe that salvation was found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. Many of them were Deists rather than Christians. Thus, when we find statements from them which speak of "God" or a "Creator," we must immediately ask, "What God do they have in mind?" "Which Creator are they referring to –  to  – the the impersonal god of Deistic belief or the holy

and personal God revealed in Scripture? Some well-meaning believers have tried to argue that all, or at least the vast majority, of the founding fathers were Christian because they were enrolled as members of Christian churches. But while it is true that many of them were we re registered members of Protestant church bodies, this does not at all mean that they were spiritually regenerate (which is the only kind of Christian that the New Testament speaks of) any more than th an the people toda today, y, who regularly attend Christian churches, are truly converted. It must be remembered that church attendance during this period was common and it was quite qu ite fashionable and proper to consider oneself "C "Christian." hristian." Moreover, this does not mean that the majority of the founding fathers viewed life from a distinctly Christian worldview nor possessed a mature biblical-theological foundation in Christian doctrine. And even if, for the sake of argument, they were all genuine Christians, this is far from  proving that they were seeking to establish a "Christian Nation."

 

mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America’s founding documents 3. There is no mention (Declaration of Independence and The Constitution). In fact, the Constitution doesn’t even make a single reference to God! Isn’t this rather odd for a nation that’s supposedly a "Christian  Nation"? Why would supposedly Christian men leave out the founder of their religion in such important documents that will serve as the basis of their "Christian Nation"? 4. The United States was the first Western nation to omit explicitly Christian symbolism (such as

the cross) from its flag and other national symbols. Why would the founding fathers neglect to employ such Christian symbolism on the national flag if, indeed, it is true that they were seeking to establish a "Christian Nation"? 5. In 1797, the United States made a treaty t reaty with the Islamic nation of Tripoli. This particular  treaty was negotiated under George Washington, ratified by b y the Senate, and signed by b y President John Adams. But notice what is said in the actual document: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims, . . . it is declared by the  parties that no pretext arising from religious religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" (Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International   Acts of the United States [Government Printing Office, 1930], Vol.II, p.365). Written by Darryl M. Erkel (1997) Recommended Reading: 

Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America  America   (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989). Michael S. Horton, Beyond Horton, Beyond Culture Wars (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994). Eds. Os Guinness & John Seel, No Seel,  No God But God (Chicago: God (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992). Ed. Michael S. Horton, Power Horton, Power Religion (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992). Thomas W. Frazier, Jr., "The Church: Living in the Present World Under the Cross of Christ," ed. John Armstrong, Reformation Armstrong, Reformation & Revival [Journal] Revival [Journal] (Winter  – 1996,  – 1996, Vol.5/No.1), pp.65-80.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close