Politics and Contemporary Christianity

[Take Five]

Politics is the art of the possible. It is about competing goods. It is about compromise. And it is about compromise that is determined by the vote.

Whereas justice is determined by the rule of law. And only the Courts are qualified to determine the rule of law. Only the Courts can deliver justice. To look for justice in politics has the smell of totalitarianism.

I am sure you know that the first thing the totalitarians do is to take justice our of the hands of the Courts into their own hands.

I never advocate taking away judicial review and sentencing away from the courts.

But every other governmental official still has the obligation to act justly. Nobody prefers an irresponsible executive or legislature. After all, what would you say about an executive order allowing unrestricted torture? While the Supreme Court has the rightful power to overturn laws, Congress should at least try to legislate according to justice and the Constitution. After all, who would want a band of thieves to decide who gets confirmed as judges?

 

[Ruthie]

C'mon, next you will be telling me that Jesus is on the Political Left.

And I guess your Political Right will tell me He is on the Right.

None of our politicians would dare to claim that Jesus is on their side, 'cause we would laugh them out of Parliament.

Nice of you to assume you know where I'm coming from.

I would laugh at the idea that politics are somehow separate from personal morality. There's no absolutely "rational" way to govern - morality and values definitely play a role. For many people, their personal values are either dictated by, or reflected in, their faith. I have no problem with any candidate making the link between their personal values (whether religious values or secular values) and the political stances they choose. That has nothing to do with claiming Jesus is on one side or the other.

 

[Ruthie]

Here we vote for politicians to legislate and judges are appointed to deliver justice.

For a politician to deliver justice or a judge to legislate, would be to violate the Separation of Powers.

It would be simply unconstitutional.

Wait a minute... are you saying that legislation has nothing to do with justice?

I'm reading the back and forth between you and Take Five on this point, but I'm still stuck on this original claim... if your parliament really doesn't take justice into consideration when making laws, I sure am glad I live in the States.

 

[Mole]

I never advocate taking away judicial review and sentencing away from the courts.

But every other governmental official still has the obligation to act justly. Nobody prefers an irresponsible executive or legislature. After all, what would you say about an executive order allowing unrestricted torture? While the Supreme Court has the rightful power to overturn laws, Congress should at least try to legislate according to justice and the Constitution. After all, who would want a band of thieves to decide who gets confirmed as judges?

Just as you have two Parties of business, we have one Party of business and one Social Democratic Party. Both have quite different values. No one expects either Party to deliver justice. It's a kind of comical thought.

No, the reason we have a Government and a Loyal Opposition is to limit the power of either one. And this is the purpose of liberal democracy - to limit power.

We don't want our politicians to deliver justice. We want to limit their power over us.

We know when a politician is seeking to increase their power over us because they talk about giving us justice. And when a politician starts to mouth the word, 'justice', we know they want more power over us.

And when they start to tell us that God is on their side, we know they really want power.

And we have found the best way to limit the power of overweening politicians is to laugh at them.

I do notice that your politicians often mention God. But if they start mentioning God and justice, it might be time to start laughing.

Of course you must have a sense of humour to start with. And unfortunately, the first casualty of Revolution is irony.

So I guess you are stuck with God and justice.

 

[Sniffles]

Nice of you to assume you know where I'm coming from.

That's Victor for you. :rolli:

 

[Take Five]

Just as you have two Parties of business, we have one Party of business and one Social Democratic Party. Both have quite different values. No one expects either Party to deliver justice. It's a kind of comical thought.

No, the reason we have a Government and a Loyal Opposition is to limit the power of either one. And this is the purpose of liberal democracy - to limit power.

We don't want our politicians to deliver justice. We want to limit their power over us.

We know when a politician is seeking to increase their power over us because they talk about giving us justice. And when a politician starts to mouth the word, 'justice', we know they want more power over us.

And when they start to tell us that God is on their side, we know they really want power.

And we have found the best way to limit the power of overweening politicians is to laugh at them.

I do notice that your politicians often mention God. But if they start mentioning God and justice, it might be time to start laughing.

Of course you must have a sense of humour to start with. And unfortunately, the first casualty of Revolution is irony.

So I guess you are stuck with God and justice.

In America we also have a two party system. Why is there more than one party? For one thing, because people have different conceptions of justice. The majority of Americans are not affiliated with a party, so while neither party is right all the time, we do want our politicians to act with integrity and a concern for justice.

So while I don't expect all that justice encompasses, such as some elements of social justice, to fall under the jurisdiction of governance, I do expect my officials to act justly according to the Constitution and am not surprised when personal beliefs relate to political actions.

I'm all for preservation of liberty, sometimes by limiting government control. But the government does have control over some things, and accordingly, an obligation to justice is in order, espeicially on the individual level. We ideally don't elect parties. We elect individuals; individuals that will be responsible for appointing and confirming protectors of justice.

 

[Sniffles]

bronson, it's important not to impose anarchronisms here. For one, capitalism did not exist in Jesus' time, nor did concepts of "Left" and "Right". That emerged out of the post-1789 political scene with the fall of the French monarchy. So to claim Jesus was of the "Left" or the "Right" isn't really going to get you far.

 

[Take Five]

bronson, it's important not to impose anarchronisms here. For one, capitalism did not exist in Jesus' time, nor did concepts of "Left" and "Right". That emerged out of the post-1789 political scene with the fall of the French monarchy. So to claim Jesus was of the "Left" or the "Right" isn't really going to get you far.

I agree, that's a critical point. Today, I don't think it's a worthwhile goal to figure out whether Jesus is on your political team. Forces change over time, and right now I don't think any party is completely in tune with the biblical Jesus. For one thing, many of institutions, priorities, and ideas did not exist in Jesus' time. Our best bet is to discern for ourselves what we think fits in with our view of what is best for our country.

 

[Sniffles]

I agree, that's a critical point. Today, I don't think it's a worthwhile goal to figure out whether Jesus is on your political team. Forces change over time, and right now I don't think any party is completely in tune with the biblical Jesus. For one thing, many of institutions, priorities, and ideas did not exist in Jesus' time. Our best bet is to discern for ourselves what we think fits in with our view of what is best for our country.

It's one thing to claim that Christian principles inform your political views; it's another to outright claim that Christ would be in your ideological camp. Remember that taking the Lord's name in vain means more than just cussing, but also means invoking God's name for one's selfish purposes.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The sentence that pops into my head on this is, "My kingdom is not of this world." Both parties support issues that are in line with Jesus' teachings as well as other issues that are against Jesus' teachings. Essentially I think each Christian should feel free to support whatever party or candidate that they like, but also be on guard from putting too much faith into any one candidate or party.

 

[bronson]

Social justice is as bogus as astrology or MBTI.

Justice here is delivered by a properly constituted Court. And there is not one, not one, Social Justice Court in all of Australia. So not one Australian Subject can get social justice in Court. And there is no, absolutely no, social justice legislation in Australia to which a Subject can appeal.

So a reasonable person would conclude that social justice is the kind of justice you are having when you are not having any justice.

So social justice is a tool of propaganda and is bogus.

And both the LaRouche Party and MBTI found their origins in the first part of the 20th Century. And both are tarred with the same brush.

Okay, well that is all very interesting.

However, I had no idea that there was some so called Social Justice doctrine or something like that.
All I meant by the term was having compassion for the poor and marginalised...and possibly acting on that compassion.
And I'm not anti-semitic as you possibly seem to be inferring.

I'm not really talking about in society here; Courts and legal Justice system. I'm talking about in the Christian church. And I wanted to know if anyone had experienced simliar attitudes therein, but apparently not - so far.

bronson, it's important not to impose anarchronisms here. For one, capitalism did not exist in Jesus' time, nor did concepts of "Left" and "Right". That emerged out of the post-1789 political scene with the fall of the French monarchy. So to claim Jesus was of the "Left" or the "Right" isn't really going to get you far.

Good point.
However, in the first post I made, I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was on a political side. I know the Left and Right and Capitalism etc didn't exist back then. I know when they came on to the scene. And whilst it may have look that way, I don't think I made any outright claim as to Jesus' political stance.

What I meant was - in the contemporary church, protestant I guess had been my experience (denomination not so relevant maybe), contemporary political stances have been adopted by some churches or communities, (not necessarily out-spoken but it is obvious), and I'm not just refferring to those crazy conservatives who protest and stuff.

So, what I meant was, has anyone who has experienced these various adoptions of political ideology in Christian churches or communities?
And how do you/they reconcile their contemporary political stance with their belief in Jesus' teachings?

 

[Sniffles]

Good point.
However, in the first post I made, I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was on a political side. I know the Left and Right and Capitalism etc didn't exist back then. I know when they came on to the scene. And whilst it may have look that way, I don't think I made any outright claim as to Jesus' political stance.

What I meant was - in the contemporary church, protestant I guess had been my experience (denomination not so relevant maybe), contemporary political stances have been adopted by some churches or communities, (not necessarily out-spoken but it is obvious), and I'm not just refferring to those crazy conservatives who protest and stuff.

So, what I meant was, has anyone who has experienced these various adoptions of political ideology in Christian churches or communities?
And how do you/they reconcile their contemporary political stance with their belief in Jesus' teachings?

Well I certainly have much to say on this issue, but sadly it would be impossible for me to deal with many of the main issues related to such in one post. In fact I've been dealing with such in several discussions here lately.

 

[Mole]

Propaganda Fide

However, I had no idea that there was some so called Social Justice doctrine or something like that.

If you have no idea that there is a christian Social Justice doctrine, and you have no idea of its history, and you have no idea of the Social Justice doctrine in other religions, how can we have a reasonable discussion?

What it means is that I am accused of hijacking your thread simply by talking about it. This seems to me to be unfair. And worse, it seems to be anti-intellectual.

In fact christianity has a rich intellectual tradition. The very first Universities in the world were founded by christianity. And further, the civilization of the West is based on christianity.

And as I write, Western civilization is under attack by barbarism, our spiritual home is under sustained and continual attack, so we need to inform ourselves of the strengths and weaknesses of christianity, so that we might defend our home.

We are spending our blood and treasure to defend our home. But the most dangerous part of the attack is the propaganda attack. And we need to counter this attack with Propaganda Fide, the propagation of the faith.

We need to mobilise all our intellectual resources to meet the challenge.

 

[bronson]

If you have no idea that there is a christian Social Justice doctrine, and you have no idea of its history, and you have no idea of the Social Justice doctrine in other religions, how can we have a reasonable discussion?

What is means is that I am accused of hijacking your thread simply by talking about it. This seems to me to be unfair. And worse, it seems to be anti-intellectual.

In fact christianity has a rich intellectual tradition. The very first Universities in the world were founded by christianity. And further, the civilization of the West is based on christianity.

And as I write, Western civilization is under attack by barbarism, our spiritual home is under sustained and continual attack, so we need to inform ourselves of the strengths and weaknesses of christianity, so that we might defend our home.

We are spending our blood and treasure to defend our home. But the most dangerous part of the attack is the propaganda attack. And we need to counter this attack with Propaganda Fide, the propagation of the faith.

We need to mobilise all our intellectual resources to meet the challenge.

Dude, thats just so irrelevant.

See my post at the top of this page for what I'm really asking.
If you haven't had experience in a Western Protestent evangelical or charismatic churches then don't bother responding, if you have, then look at what I'm really asking - you don't have to have an opinion on everything.

What I meant was - in the contemporary church, protestant I guess had been my experience (denomination not so relevant maybe), contemporary political stances have been adopted by some churches or communities, (not necessarily out-spoken but it is obvious), and I'm not just refferring to those crazy conservatives who protest and stuff.

So, what I meant was, has anyone who has experienced these various adoptions of political ideology in Christian churches or communities?

And how do you/they reconcile their contemporary political stance with their belief in Jesus' teachings?

 

[Mole]

...has anyone who has experienced these various adoptions of political ideology in Christian churches or communities?

So I understand you to equate christianity with protestant evangelical charismatics. This seems to be a political statement. It also seems narrow and bigoted.

No wonder I am accused of hijacking your thread. It certainly beats dealing with the issues.

 

[wildcat]

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm only addressing this to those who claim to be Christians - of any standing. Or are greatly interested in Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.
So if you're looking to attack religion in any way or slam Christianity just don't bother, coz I'm not interested in what you have to say.

This isn't about apologetics, doubt, refutation of the historical Jesus, or religious debate.
I'd just like to hear other Christian-ish peoples ideas on this.


Okay, so, if you are Christian, or there abouts...

1. What is your political stance

2. How do you justify this with your beliefs in Jesus and his teachings?


My problem:
Raised to fear the politically Left, which I now support. Wasn't even really aware about politics etc.
Communism was bad - because of its secular nature.

As I began to understand politics, I couldn't believe how much Christian Churches supported Conservatism.
Its like, if you're a Christian you're conservative. It freaked me out... coz I'm so anti-capitalist, anti-tradition (in alot of respects).

And it just seemed so messed up because no where in the teachings of Jesus could I find anything that supported Capitalism, or traditional institutionalised religion (which I know is just practical for Christians).

I mean, according to the 4 Biblical accounts, Jesus was all about social justice and social equality, right?
He treated women and men more equally than others did in those days.
He had empathy and compassion for any who were suffering.
He insisted multiple times on the love of others above the self.
He called religious zealots hypocrits
And whilst he taught in the institutional synagogue, he also taught outside, in towns, in peoples homes, at parties - wherever; it wasn't just a Sunday morning.



I know that religion and politics are cultural agents - affected in their own way and developed differently in different societies.


BUT HOW DOES A RELIGION BASED ON SUCH VALUES IDENTIFY WITH CONSERVATISM?!
Apart from the contemporary freedom of worship element (in my country anyway).

Of course... things are different today.
In my branch of the religion anyway... theres the liberal Leftys been introduced.

Its like:


Progressive < < < ME < < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > Conservative
liberal < < < ME < < < < < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > > traditional
Gender equality < ME < < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > Wives submit
Jesus died as an ultimate example < < | > >ME> Jesus died to redeem & save
Spiritual < Me < < < < < < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > > Religious
Community oriented < Me < < < < < < | > > > Family and Church Institution
Socially Just < Me < < < < < < < < < < |> > > > > >Tithe! ie Pay the leaders
Find ways around Biblical principals < < < Me > > > Bible literalists
Bible subjective < < < < < ME< | > > > > > > > Bible absolute truth
Morals more relative in a way < < < < < < Me | > > > > > > Traditional Morals
Unobtrusive < < < < < Me < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > Highly evangelical
Alternative < < < < < < Me < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > Orthodox
Complex < < < < < < < < < < < < < < | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple


But both the Institutional Religious Right and Communal Spritual Left have elements that seem to go against things Jesus taught!


Confusion reigns.

Education divides the faithful.

The people who get education, by necessity, leave the fundamentalist interpretation of the faith.
There is a weight of evidensce against the fundamentalist interpretaiton of the faith.

 

[bronson]

So I understand you to equate christianity with protestant evangelical charismatics. This seems to be a political statement. It also seems narrow and bigoted.

No wonder I am accused of hijacking your thread. It certainly beats dealing with the issues.

How did you come to such and understanding? I'm only referring to the protestant evangelical charismatics because thats the only experience I've had. I would have no idea about other branches of the religion, so I'm not going to refer to them when I don't know.
I am no bigot... and to accuse me of such is reactionary and simple minded.

I never accused you of hijacking this thread, though now you mention it your posts have fallen so far from any question I originally posed that its no longer worthwhile responding to you. Therefore, feel free to retaliate (as you are likely to do it would seem, though it would be better I you stayed away from this thread altogether), however, I'm not going to respond to anything else you say unless its of direct relevance, coz this is just boring.

Education divides the faithful.

The people who get education, by necessity, leave the fundamentalist interpretation of the faith.
There is a weight of evidensce against the fundamentalist interpretaiton of the faith.

This is an interesting point... I guess education reforms world view changing understanding of religious teachings maybe...

 

[Sniffles]

Bronson, since you're operating from a Protestant perspective, this might interest you concerning the political implications of Karl Barth's theology.

 

[miss fortune]

I was just chatting with my dad about this topic a while back because he was growling about how the local minister in the church that my mother drags him to every sunday is a complete raving lunatic and I wanted to know exactly how raving and lunatical (probably not a word, but perfect for my needs here!)

The dude really does seem to be nuts and have a wish to spread his own crazy, misogynistic and intolerant views to anyone who's willing to subject themselves to his sermons on a weekly basis. Topics of discussion in sermons include, but are not limited to-

*women should submit to thier husbands wishes, and that Paul says that women who don't have kids won't go to heaven
*the Catholic church endorses torture, but protestant religions have never done so
*premarital sex is a one way ticket to hell
*Buddhists worship buddha and the god worshiped by jews and muslims is quite different from that of christianity
*Catholics aren't christians
*Obama is the antichrist
*social justice programs are against what Jesus taught, and those who engage in liberation theology and social assistance programs are influenced by satan's creeping influence to turn everyone into secular humanists

The man is clearly demented, but from what I've heard from asking around in that county his message isn't all that unique. It makes me kind of wonder- is this strand of Contemporary Christianity all that common (apparently it has a cousin in Australia I guess!) and how does ANYONE think that the bible could be the basis of these beleifs?!

 

[Sniffles]

*Catholics aren't christians

Indeed we're not.

"Ego Sum Papa" (I am the Pope)

The Papal hierarchy as mash in the Devil's vineyard.

All hail Martin Luther!