I am currently reading “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” (you can get it cheaper on Amazon) It is an interesting read indeed, not to mention challenging given the URL of this blog. Here is an interesting quote given our current religious-political upheaval which is wrecking the Church of Jesus Christ across the board this Country.
He quotes Tertullian “ Quid est imperatori cum eccleisia” or “What does the emperor have to do with the Church” on page 30.
I wonder if the Church of Christ is in the bed too frequently with the state today? Given the current religious blog and radio programming I have read and listened to, I don’t think I am being over zealous by asking such a question.
What do you think?
Lionel,
You wonder correctly, my brother!
Even this wonderful great south land has taken a lead from the USA in the last couple of elections as political leaders tried to curry support of churches, but not yet getting to the stage of the “God’s will” rhetoric we hear from some of your leaders.
Ah, the American influence! That is why so many hate us!
Ditto, you wonder correctly! This burns me up with my good religious right brothers. I can hardly tell if they are Christians who happen to be Republicans OR Republicans who happen to be Christians.
I really go off when they act like they are “Bible, Bible, Bible,” yet then make politically expedient decisions and try to act they are not political compromisers; like every other political hack.
This burns me up. “Evangelical” George Bush says Christians and Muslims worship the same God and my friends say NOTHING.
They are my brothers and I love them, but I tell them to their faces that they are religio-political syncretists, that stink just like Constantine.
Now my liberal “brothers” trip me out in another way. They deny the authority of Scripture/exclusivity of Christ, yet if they are for the so-called “black cause” then they are Christians. Bologna!
Since the 1st century church/state blends have ALWAYS led to nominalism – which certainly describes Christianity in America.
SB,
I agree. It is funny how I see democrats denouncing Bush in the name of Christ and Republicans denouncing Democrats in the same name. What says Jesus?
This post was stupid and all of its comments were stupid. I don’t even feel like wasting my time beating this dead horse. If you don’t think Christians should try to become pro-active in making changes in their culture then you won’t believe anything I say anyway.
Is this post about Christians or the Church? Isn’t the political activity of individual Christians different than the mission of the gathered church?
Now, I don’t know you, so maybe I missed the joke?
Well, Lionel can correct me if I am wrong, but when he talks about the church in reference to the “current religious blog and radio programming” that he has seen and heard then he is obviously referring to Christians in the church, not the church as an institution. Besides, one sees individual Christians from the church involving themselves in politics. One does not see church institutions doing the same. Your buddies on the left wouldn’t allow it. Something about the separation of church and state.
D.A,
Thanks for the ever gracious and encouraging words, you never fail to exhort a brother I can tell you that! When did you become so nice and your convesation so seasoned with salt? When did you become so gentle and patient. Your constant fruit bearing speaks voulmes of the Spirit residing within you. Have you been involved in mentoring and discipling other men and women. I hope many more Christians act and talk just like you, this world would be sooooo messed up if there weren’t more Godly men and women like you.
Lionel-
That is a great book, good recommendation.
Most peoples understanding of church history is woefully inadequate.
Trust religious freedom in America was fought for by the Anabaptists not the “Reformed” or “The Puritans”.
I am ‘Reformed” only to the extent that I subscribe to the doctrines of grace as spelled out in the scriptures.
Although I would be considered a 5 pointer, I would never want to be identified with the murderous Calvin and his despotic and totalitarian nightmare “Little Geneva”.
The IDS guys have some great pieces in their reading room regarding church and state one is a response to Bill Bright and the other is entitled the Anabaptist Vision.
If you have not read those, you may wish to check them out.
D.A.-
Your use of the terms stupid and idiotic in your comments shows a lot of emotional immaturity on your part.
In this case your comments show a complete ignorance regarding the content of the book that Lionel is recommending.
Being a jerk is never a good policy.
As with other recent issues discussed on this blog, for many people this is a very emotional topic. A lot of professing Christians have more of their conscience invested in this topic than any other facing the kingdom, including the current corruption of the true gospel that is so prevalent in America.
For me politics is a matter of one’s own conscience, including the decision of whether to be involved or not. For those who say that it is not, the requirements become much more specific, even bordering on being an essential to your profession of being a Christian. Most even go so far as to use the bible, out of context I might add, to buttress their assertions. They use text (out of context I might add) such as Romans 13, Galatians 6:10 and others. I find it disgraceful.
Too add to that, not only do they believe you are morally responsible to vote, they also believe you are morally responsible to vote for a certain party (Republican) and for a certain purpose (to stop abortion and gay marriage). I say that if by voting Democrat an individual is morally responsible for the sins or sinful policies of that party, then the reverse is also true. Some would agree with me but then claim that some sins aren’t as bad as others. Unnecessary wars (a classification they wouldn’t except) aren’t as sinful as abortion. This they would blame on the numbers. And financial misconduct (big oil, mortgage banks, lobbyist) doesn’t have near the societal impact as gay marriage, they would argue. This they would claim on merely speculative grounds.
The truth is that the gospel (and here I include loving acts of kindness and good works) is the only real solution and the Church’s only specifically commanded approach to the ills of our society. No one can argue that laws do not change hearts but the gospel of Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit does.
That should be the focus of any member of the Body.
Lionel,
I don’t always have five hours to sit at my computer and correct everything on your blog in a nice manner. Sometimes I do, but usually I don’t. You should know, though, that I always have the best of intentions. I always speak the truth, even when that truth makes me seem like the bad guy. Having said that, I don’t see how the sarcasm in your comment is any more loving than how I stated what I said. I want you to know that I was never calling you or any of your commenters stupid. I was attacking what you guys have said (which is fair game), though I was not attacking you as people. But when Hutch called me a jerk, an attack on my character and integrity, you say nothing. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for your consistency. Funny how no one tries to defend their statements, they just resort to attacking me instead.
As far as this post is concerned, I guess you would rather Christians let a bunch of socialists and atheists turn this country into Russia, eh comrade?
D.A,
Correction ain’t the problem brother. Your words are. You have called people idiots, stupid, dumb, liberals, and the like and now you have the audacity to play the victim. Man if you don’t get outta here with that dude! You can’t be serious.
You are being a jerk when you say people are stupid and that they are idiots. That is why I wrote the sarcasm. You have a serious problem with that. You can say I disagree without stooping to such terms. That’s not an opinion that is a fact, you can dialogue and refrain from the name calling dude. Geesh!
Read the sarcasm again and take it as admonishment. You have to be careful with the name calling it doesn’t reflect the fruit of the Spirit nor does it minister grace to those who read it. I hope my sarcasm did do that. I hope people (especially you) read it and take it to heart that we have imperatives to obey as to how we communicate with others. If you don’t like that fine, but I will continue to push you underneath the scriptures until you realize what you are doing is wrong.
Now let me ask. Who are the socialist and atheists you refer to? Any names. And my job as a believer isn’t to push the cause of the United States of America but the cause of the Cross and believe me the two are not the same regardless of how so many of my brothers on the Right may believe. God is for the Christian nation not any particular nation. There has been but one theocracy endorsed by God and they dissolved when the New Covenant was inaugurated.
Lawrence D., you are right about the emotions. As much as some fret about the advance of America, that (and more) is how much I fret about the advance of Christ and His kingdom.
This is really where the “rubber meets the road” as far as a lot of Christians deciding where to invest their time, money, and energy.
D.A.,
Have I sinned if I refuse to vote for either candidate? Have I sinned if abortion or gay marriage is not my #1 issue? By the way, I am pro-life but I am curious about priority.
“If you don’t like that fine, but I will continue to push you underneath the scriptures until you realize what you are doing is wrong.”
You haven’t used any scriptures, Lionel. You are trying to make people believe the Bible says Thou shalt be nice to people but the Bible never says that. Jesus always spoke the truth and sometimes he called them names too. It wasn’t always the nice thing to do, but telling the truth is always the right thing to do. Is that what I am being guilty of?
“Now let me ask. Who are the socialist and atheists you refer to?”
Well, it’s only obvious that if Christians don’t get involved in politics then those who do involve themselves in politics will be neopaganists and atheists. The math is simple.
“And my job as a believer isn’t to push the cause of the United States of America but the cause of the Cross”
I understand if you don’t want to further the cause of the country. But why do you have a problem if I do? If I have a vision as a Christian, If I think I can make it a better country , if I want to further the cause of Christ and the cause of the country why is that wrong? See, if you would have stated your own personal conviction, that you personally didn’t want to be involved in politics, then I wouldn’t have thought anything of it. One of the problems I had with this post is you make it sound like no Christian anywhere should be involved with politics. And you didn’t even try use scripture to back that up.
I’m sorry, it wasn’t your best post. Take this as constructive criticism, not as insult.
D. A. may I ask a question? If this country were to take the turn that you imply it would were Christians to remove themselves from political involvement, how would that impact the spread of the gospel of the Kingdom of God?
Smithbaptist,
Before I answer your question do you mind if I learn a little about you first? Like, where are you coming from? Are you a baptist like your name implies? What are your priorities in the political arena? Etc.
It will help me to better answer your question
D.A,
All I used were scriptures lets try the addresses since you don’t recognize them.
Eph 4:32
32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Col 4:6
6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Col 3
12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
So let me answer the questions in the order you present them:
1. You can tell “your” truth while simultaneously refraining from calling people idots and stupid.
2. I never said that individual Christians are to refrain from politics, ever. Christians as individuals can do what they like, other than force their politcal alignments on others.
3. I don’t have a problem if you do. Don’t do it as Gospel however. That is my problem. We are not to bring the world under subjection using the sword (or politics) D.A. If you can’t see that then you have misread your entire New Testament.
4. That is what you read I never said “no Christians anywhere shouldn’t be involved in politcs”. As a matter of fact Christians should be involved in every aspect of secular life and bring the light of the Gospel there. The problem you have is that you can’t see the two seperately. D.A there is to be a seperation of Church and the State. Jesus didn’t come to redeem a state and Christanity is not to propogated through political means. The Gospel is to spread by the preaching of the gospel not by political influence.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution or anywhere in our official documents. Indeed it first shows up in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson writes:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Separation of Church and state was not EVER meant to keep the Christian influence out of politics. The term spearation of church and state, until perversed by liberals in this country, was meant to keep the state out of the church’s affairs.
“I never said that individual Christians are to refrain from politics, ever.”
Than what’s the purpose of this post?
“Christians as individuals can do what they like, other than force their politcal alignments on others.”
Well, since there are no Christians forcing their politics on others then there’s no problem. Again, what’s your point?
“and now you have the audacity to play the victim.”
A black person has a problem with a white person playing the victim. How typical. It’s not so fun when the rabbit has the gun, is it?
Stephen, you shouldn’t make foolish statements like that. It’s distasteful.
Sorry.
Stephen,
1. How said it was in the constitution? Have I mentioned anything about a constitution anywhere in my post as a matter of fact check all my writings and see if I have ever deferred to the Constitution for anything I have written.
2. The Church is to never drive politics the Church is to drive the Gospel. That is her sole purpose, not to change politcal atmosphere of a country.
3. The purpose of this post is to refute men like “Mohler, Dobson, Smith, NAACP, Black Pastors, Stanley, Farwell Jr. and a slew of others who are saying “it is a Christians responsiblity to vote and to vote for a specific candidate, and to do the other is a denial of Christian duty”. Does that answer that question? Not to mention Burning Woman and D.A who says “how can a black person vote for Obama” (I think you were involved in such a statement also but I could be wrong so I refuse to include you).
4. Your quote “a black peson has a ploblem”….. is uncacceptable, and is quite sinful to say the least, but again you and D.A are infamous for such crude and derogatory statements. I don’t know why you are so tempted to say things like this but you got to chill out bro.
D.A.,
I am really a Baptist (Southern Baptist to be precise). Politically, I am an independent and have voted for candidates of both parties.
I don’t know that I have a political priority, but I am a federalist believing that the best government is the “closest” government.
“Have I sinned if I refuse to vote for either candidate? Have I sinned if abortion or gay marriage is not my #1 issue? By the way, I am pro-life but I am curious about priority.”
Smithbaptist,
I don’t have time to engage in a conversation about what our priorities should be so if it’s okay with you I’d like to go back to your original question:
“Is this post about Christians or the Church? Isn’t the political activity of individual Christians different than the mission of the gathered church?”
The answer is yes. The Bible says we are of one body but we are many parts. So while some people are the foot (like Albert Mohler, who is a fellow Southern Baptist of yours) and other people are the hand (like Lionel) the hand should not say to the foot, “I don’t need you.” We need some Christians to be in full time ministry. Some to be car mechanics. Some to be chefs. And yes, some in politics. Each individual needs to answer to the call God gives to them. I find it completely arrogant that some would even try to suggest some Christians are in bed too much with the state. Unlike most Christians, Lionel doesn’t agree with Albert Mohler and James Dobson when they tell people to vote and so he concludes that it must not be the job of Christians to drive politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lionel said:
“There’s to be a separation of church and state” (though his definition of this is different than what everyone else’s is) and he says:
“The Church is to never drive politics the Church is to drive the Gospel. That is her sole purpose, not to change politcal atmosphere of a country.”
So Christians can earn a living driving trucks but they can’t earn a living driving politics? I guess it’s wrong to be a doctor then too, since technically they’re not driving the gospel all the time either. I mean, if it’s okay to be a cashier at Walmart, how is working full time in politics any different?
Smithbaptist, the first reason that we must be involved is because the Bible commands it. We are to be salt and light in the culture. It’s not an option. It is a direct command of our Lord so we cannot renege in our Christian duties. So, that’s first and foremost, but secondly, practically speaking, if we are not salt, Jesus says we will be trampled on. So we have to decide whether or not we’re going to obey our Lord and be the salt that he has called us to be or are we going to be the victims of a godless culture.
Lionel says I can’t seem to seperate the two – politics and the gospel. That’s not true. I think people should do what they are called to do. If it’s politics for me, fine. If it’s not politics for you, that’s fine too. Lionel can’t see that the two are ever connected. But there is a complementary relationship between calling individuals to repentance and faith in Christ and calling a culture to repentance and faith in Christ. And so, yes, we understand that culture, or politics, is downstream from culture. And if you want to change politics, you’ve got to change the hearts and minds of people. Absolutely, we’re committed to that. But it’s a false choice . . . it’s a false dichotomy to say that you have to do one or the other. In fact, I believe you can do both very effectively because, as you speak to the issues in the culture, God brings conviction of sin and righteousness and judgment to the heart and soul of the hearer which leads them to personal conversion as well.
The biggest issue facing our country today is if we are going to become a secularized, humanist-driven culture that creates policy from that point of view . . . or, are we going to live in a culture that respects our Judeo-Christian founding and sees a world that is accountable to an almighty God. Are we going to be a nation under God or are we going to be a nation under the ideas of men? And that’s really what’s at stake; everything else is symptomatic of that. If God’s not there, of course, then we can murder unborn babies, kill the Christians or whatever. What Lionel doesn’t see is that if Christians don’t drive politics to make change in our culture, then we may not have a church to drive the gospel. And that’s the bottom line.
D.A,
You love speaking for me brother. You must be of the Bernard Jordan camp to be such a great prophet even to the extent of knowing my mind. Wow! Now on to your statements which trouble me greatly:
The biggest issue facing our country today is if we are going to become a secularized, humanist-driven culture that creates policy from that point of view . . . or, are we going to live in a culture that respects our Judeo-Christian founding and sees a world that is accountable to an almighty God. Are we going to be a nation under God or are we going to be a nation under the ideas of men? And that’s really what’s at stake; everything else is symptomatic of that. If God’s not there, of course, then we can murder unborn babies, kill the Christians or whatever. What Lionel doesn’t see is that if Christians don’t drive politics to make change in our culture, then we may not have a church to drive the gospel. And that’s the bottom line.
1. What exactly does “Judeo-Christian” mean? I am curious of this.
2. Secondly why should we press “Judeo-Christian” values on others why not Muslim, or Buddhist, or even Wiccan for that matter. What makes you think that it is okay to press our convictions on others through the political process? Why not have women wear head and face coverings and ban alcohol and make our women submissive like the Muslims? Who has given you a right to push “Judeo Christian” values on others? And where do you find that scripturally that we are to use the political process to do it?
3. Which God? And what if those in this nation don’t want to be under our God? What if they think their god is better?
4. D.A your last statement is the most troubling. You, actually believe that a mere mortal, can prevent the Church from building? Do you actually think that somehow the gates of hell can prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ and even if you do you think politics and “driving culture” is the answer to that? D.A, you really need to spend more time in your bible my man. Read the story brother “we win”. We win by a landslide, we are up 1000 to -1,000,000 in the first innning. We win totally and we win completely and our adversaries will perish. Nothing can prevent the Gospel from going out into the world my friend because the creator of this world financed the inquisition with His blood.
The bottom line is that Christians do not have the right to force their “Judeo Christian” values on others. We are to plead and appeal to men and women, and child with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not to try to save “the sactity of marriage” through our political process, but by having Godly marriages (it is funny that those who profess Christ is right around 51% as it relates to divorce but we want to save marriage). The bottom line is we have something much more powerful. We can change hearts we don’t have to manipulate behavior. So maybe you misunderstand me, maybe you don’t. However, you must prove your point expositionally which you have consistently failed to do.
D. A.,
Maybe you will continue to ignore my questions but I will raise them anyway. You typed this:
“What Lionel doesn’t see is that if Christians don’t drive politics to make change in our culture, then we may not have a church to drive the gospel. And that’s the bottom line.”
In light of this statement, how do you explain the growing Christian community in a place like China?
Brother Lawrence D,
The reason why the church has been growing in China is because we Americans have always had the finances and the freedom to send missionaries there. Trust me, if our liberties get taken away the whole world would feel the blow.
Burning Woman,
So in other words, if we lost our freedoms here in America, then all Christ would have to do is raise up missionaries from another country to send here to help the church grow here. So then D. A. is wrong that we wouldn’t have a church any more. Thanks for agreeing with me.
“Secondly why should we press “Judeo-Christian” values on others why not Muslim, or Buddhist, or even Wiccan for that matter. What makes you think that it is okay to press our convictions on others through the political process? Why not have women wear head and face coverings and ban alcohol and make our women submissive like the Muslims? Who has given you a right to push “Judeo Christian” values on others? And where do you find that scripturally that we are to use the political process to do it?”
First of all, you need to take a civics class (especially if you don’t know what Judeo-Christian means). You have no idea what you’re talking about. When, above, did I say I wanted to force my beliefs on others? Oh yeah, I didn’t. I say they had to respect our Judeo-Christian founding. Look at the quote again. Yep, that’s what it says. And what I mean by that is they are trying to take God out of our Founding. The founding fathers believed that our rights were endowed by our creator. They knew that if these rights were given to us by by our government than our government could also take them away. But were they given to us by God then only
God could take them away. They said God gave these rights to us because it’s true and so that the government wouldn’t try to take them away. Lionel, Saying that our country needs to respect our Judeo-Christian founding has nothing to do with forcing our theological beliefs on others. It doesn’t mean we are going to make everyone baptize their children, it means we want our rights left alone.
Hey, me, Stephen, and Burning Woman will be backed up today, so if you want the last word on this post, go for it.
Is that what you want it to come down to, Brother Lawrence D? My goodness, you’re screwed up!
Burning Woman,
It has nothing to do with what I personally want. This is an argument of logic.
Here was D.A.’s argument (as I understood it from his statement):
If we lose our rights/freedoms we may lose the church.
So my question was:
If Chinese Christians do not have rights then how come they haven’t lost the church?
Your response was:
Because of the benevolence of American Christians.
So my conclusion is:
If American Christians lose their rights/freedoms, then Christ will raise up benevolence from Christians of another country. They will send missionaries and we will not lose the church.
It’s logic, not my personal desire, that helps me to assess the validity of an argument
BTW,
Me screwed up? What else do you expect from a racist? LOL!!!
You say that you don’t want it to come down to that but that’s what would happen if Christians removed themselves from political involvement.
Brother Lawrence D-
I have come to the conclusion that the offensive comment that you remain unrepentant about was not knowingly made to insult me personally. But it does prove that you have a biased viewpoint of what white people in general think about black men.
Your comment regarding your employment situation also proves my assertion that racism is no longer institutional in America and that it is a rare and individual condition and not at all the dominant attitude.
BTW, Lionel at least partly agrees with me on that.
I have already answered your vague questions about inner city schools, government and business with my statement that racism is not institutional.
I never said that black people should just need to get over it. The fact is that I know some never will and that is a shame. In some cases it completely understandable depending on how up front and personal it was for them.
I did say that the hope is in the future and that My generation (GEN X) and the (Y Generation/Millennials) are as a group very color blind.
BTW these two generations are larger than even the Baby Boomers, GEN Y has been called the Echo Boom as they are a huge group.
We judge people by the character of their conduct not by the color of their skin.
You do indeed stereo-type white people, but I should not have called you a racist.
For that I would like to ask you to forgive me.
Burning Woman,
That may be true. However, it’s an assumption or educated guest at best but not a forgone conclusion.
I wrote some great articles over at my website called “Politics and Religion”:
http://www.rootsofdemocracy.com/Religion_Politics.html
Another is titled “Fundamentalism, the Religious Right, and the NeoCon Agenda” Go to: http://www.rootsofdemocracy.com/fundamentalism_agenda.html
This article explains how Fundamentalist ideals in Christianity have polarized extremists among the Muslims, and both sides have to really listen to each other to find peace.
These articles are ongoing, and plan to have blogs like this over there soon.
Check out the main page: http://www.RootsofDemocracy.com to see how all this fits in with the present financial meltdown…
One of the strangest pictures of Jesus I have seen on the web shows him dressing in a paramilitary outfit carrying an assault rifle. The slogan below says, “If this picture offends you, how do you think Jesus feels right now”?
What I don’t understand: How can Christians back a President that condones killing many more innocent victims than enemy [Iraq] and expect any good from it?
Who lined back pockets of those occupying the White House to kill “In the name of Jesus”? Is that really any better than giving Women a right to choose? Is it really better to allow babies to be born when they are unwanted, or the result of immoral practices?
Peaceful dialogue, listening to the “other side” is the only solution here…