With the presidential race (22 months out) already “heating upâ€â€¦it provoked some thoughts. Over the last few years I’ve wondered more and more about Christians involvement in politics.
As a Christian…do you sit back and let the government go in a direction that is against what you believe?…
or
As a Christian…do you try to impose your beliefs on the whole country?
that’s a tough one…
Hey Grant,
Do you remember a conversation we had in Riverside when I visited about how “everyone” is trying to be like the church in the NT. We both thought it was a silly idea that you can expect to replicate that historical situation. Well, I’m reading a book by James K. A. Smith entitled Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism in which he articulates why this is impossible. He is speaking that the ahistoricism of the Enlightenment that sought to find universal, objective “facts” that were not dependent upon history or culture. Smith’s claim is that is exactly what the postmodern church is trying to do. It wants to skip over everything between the 2nd century and 20th century as if it didn’t happen. Here is a quote:
Primitivism retains the most minimal commitment to God’s action in history (in the life of Christ and usually in the first century of apostolic activity) and then seeks to make only this first century “New Testament church” normative for contemporary practice. This is usually articulated by a rigid distinction between Scripture and tradition (the latter then usually castigated as “the traditions of men” as opposed to the “God-given” realities of Scripture). Such primitivism is thus anticreedal and anticatholic, rejecting any sense that what has unfolded by the church between the first and the twenty-first centuries is at all normative for current faith and practice (the question of the canon’s formation being an interesting exception here). Ecumenical creeds and confessions- such as the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed- that unite the church across time and around the globe are not “live” in primitivist worship practices, which enforce a sense of autonomy or even isolation, while at the same time claiming a direct connection to first-century apostolic practices. (129)
I thought you might like this.
Peace,
Greg
Also, I like the new site. One point of mention is that “;” is a question mark in Greek. I thought it may be kind of cool to put that after “ecclesia” on your page instead of a “?”. However, most people would probably not understand what a semi-colon is doing after it.
Thought provoking…
I know I recently heard a friend say Communism was a “biblical” form of government because its how things were in the early church. Not quite…
While its true, as Acts 2:42-47 tells us, that the believers shared all their possesions so that no one was in need, each individual still had to live under the rule of the Roman government. To this, Christ had told them to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” The church made sure their people were not in need, not the government.
This may be a stretch, but I think a biblically minded theme would be to endure and obey the government (as long as it does not counter scriptural truth), but to have one’s allegiance first and foremost to God. His requirements supercede any earthly government’s.
So in short, I believe under the democracy of my government, I should be involved in voice and in choice in the political process. I should lobby for the issues that I believe are best for my country, and I should check those issues with scripture. But,being involved does not mean I must “impose” my ideas on others.
the answer is to vote for anybody but hilary clinton.