Conservatism is not Christianity. Pursuing the kingdom of God and His righteousness includes both conserving what is good and progressing in what is lacking.
When it comes to politics, we religious conservatives are quick to point out that much of what the world calls “progress” is neither good nor pleasing to God and in terms of pursuing God’s kingdom, is not progress at all. We have fought hard, and rightly so, for the right to life at every stage, for the preservation of traditional marriage, and for religious liberty of all people. At the same time, not all about our history should be preserved and we should be willing to repent of and forsake those long historical patterns that are sinful and even abandon some cherished values and traditions that keep us from achieving God’s grander kingdom purpose.
If progressivism’s flaw is that it too often values change that moves us away from God’s righteousness, conservatism’s fatal flaw is that it sometimes seeks to conserve values and a way of life indiscriminately and without recognizing that a pursuit of God’s kingdom and His righteousness means that some things MUST change. Even as we seek to preserve those values that are right and true, we must also seek to change those things that need changing.
- While wanting to conserve the rule of law and right governance, we must also recognize and acknowledge that some laws are unjust, that our justice system often applies the law unevenly, and that some of our systems and practices of law enforcement must change.
- While wanting to conserve our way of life, we must also acknowledge that some segments of society and minority groups have been kept from enjoying the privileges we take for granted and work to change so that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is available to all peoples.
- While wanting to conserve family values and a biblical view of marriage and sexuality, we must also acknowledge and change the way conservatives and evangelicals have sometimes treated gay people as less than human and created in the image of God and change so that we are offering the love of Christ and the hope of the gospel to those in the LGBT community.
- While wanting to conserve our family and cultural heritage, we must also acknowledge that there are many parts of American history that were sinful and be willing to change and abandon some of the cultural symbols, nostalgia, and iconography of a time when some or our ancestors defended the right to treat fellow humans as chattel property and engage in all kinds of evil towards entire races of people.
- While wanting to conserve our national sovereignty and control our borders, we must also acknowledge that our nation has maintained a broken system that has welcomed illegal aliens and that we must fix our immigration policy in a way that preserves families and human dignity, and is humane toward “dreamers” and those who have known no other life than here.
- While wanting to conserve our own ideas, opinions, and ways of thinking we must acknowledge that we sometimes allow issues to “trigger” us to respond in unkind and ungodly ways, to respond without considering another point of view, to respond without thinking critically about an issue, to respond without even reading and considering another’s argument. We must change so that we are willing to listen and respond and seek to work together rather than just react and resist other’s ideas, insights, and perspectives. We must change so that we hear the hearts of our minority brothers and sisters and seek to understand their experience and their concerns and not deflect with “what about…?” statements and thus ignore the problems which we have the most culpability and power to change.
We must hold a higher value than making America great again (and this is not a slam on Trump or those who voted for Him). The problem with “Make America Great Again” is that it seeks to conserve or return to values held dear without acknowledging that there are some things in our past that weren’t so great – there are some things about America’s past that required changing and some things about our present that still need to be changed. I’m all for making America great, if that means that we conserve the things of value and progress in those things that do not yet meet God’s standard.
But that’s where much of our support of a party or a politician so problematic. We end up mixing kingdom values with party values as if they are the same thing. In the process, we embrace parts of our party platform or favored politician’s agenda that are not at all godly.
On the one hand, we fail to think critically and consider the perspectives of those whose experience and hierarchy of Christian/political values are not the same as ours. We rightly fight for the right to life and the preservation of traditional marriage and sexuality, while not thinking much at all about poverty, criminal justice, or a fair and humane immigration policy. We get behind the idea of making America great again while ignoring the honest question of our minority brothers whose primary experience has been injustice, oppression, marginalization, and racism: when was America ever great?
On the other hand, we so want the positive agenda of our party platform to succeed that we too often remain silent about things that are wrong in our own camp, lack of leadership by our favored politicians, or practices and policies that are ungodly and unjust. To achieve our desired end on some issues (or perhaps sometimes to gain our own political favor and prestige) we speak when we should remain silent and remain silent where we should speak up. When we become wed to party, politician, or political ideology, we in turn lose our prophetic voice.
The truth is, conservatism is not Christianity. Those who call ourselves conservatives should not want to go back to the way things used to be in every area. We should acknowledge and value the progress that has been made toward God’s purpose in creation – progress that has been made in valuing the Imago Dei in all people – and “conserve” that progress while continuing to make more progress in those very areas.
A right perspective acknowledges that there are some things worth conserving and there are some things where we as a nation must continue to make progress. But to sort that all out takes critical thinking, active listening, a dose of humility, hard work, and a willingness to see things from a perspective other than our own. Most of all, it takes a desire to pursue God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven and work until He comes with all those who call upon His name, even those who don’t claim the label “conservative”.
Note: This post has been revised slightly and some of the comments are in reference to a previous version of the post.
I agree completely with this post.
Our faith should never be second place to or confused with some political program.
It can be so tricky. We are called to be salt and light, and we are called to make disciples and to teach people whatever Jesus taught. For that reason, I am not an isolationist that strictly separates faith from civic or secular life.
But having said that, neither Jesus nor the apostles gave us a road map for issues.
Some issues are clear. Others are not so clear.
We have to be careful not try and use Jesus as supporting our views vs. other views. And we cannot confuse the Gospel with political issues, as in “this is a Gospel issue.” The NT never speaks in terms like that, and we should be careful not to do so.
I am fairly convictional about political issues, and I believe my convictions are consistent with Christian teaching, but I do not claim they are a necessary extensions of Christian teaching, or that the issues about which I feel strongly are “Gospel issues.” There are exceptions, but they are very few.
I believe that one of the issues the SBC is going to continue to face in the future is how to voice its public witness to the world in the political realm. We have a real head start because we still believe in the Gospel, and most of our money and concern goes to that – in the real sense, not like many formerly evangelical denominations and groups. So we don’t have a lot of energy left over to focus on politics.
But even having said that, there are going to be disagreements in the SBC about political causes and issues. The greatest test of our fellowship will be whether we can learn to disagree with each other without accusing each other. That is, unless you agree with me on this issue or that issue, you are not pleasing Jesus or truly concerned about the things that concern Jesus.
We cannot bully one another into falling in line. Even if we succeed here and there, the price will be the lack of unity that will show up in a lack of enthusiasm for our true calling.
This is a good post! Thanks for writing it.
I know you to be a thoughtful fellow and was glad to meet you in Phoenix. I generally agree with your article. But I’m not joining you in a number of your “we” statements. One at a time:
Todd wrote, “While wanting to conserve our family and cultural heritage, we must also acknowledge that there are many parts of our history that were sinful and be willing to change and abandon the cultural symbols, nostalgia, and iconography of a time when we fought for the right to treat fellow humans as chattel property and engage in all kinds of evil towards and entire race of people.”
This is an extremely broad generalization that lacks sufficient specifics to be justified. There are a range of reminders of Confederate history. A few of these qualify as you classify them all but not many. Your paragraph cavalierly and unfairly indicts almost all of the group that you have targeted. The terms chosen are both insulting and tendentious. I judge anyone who actually makes this as a serious statement to be uninformed and misguided.
“We” didn’t fight for slavery. Slavery has been repudiated in every corner of American life. If you see “cultural symbols” in almost all of these I see history. In places where the main Confederate symbol has official standing (as in a state flag) I’d put it in a museum. You sniff, “nostalgia”. I see people who didn’t choose their ancestors and are interested in their lives. We punish acts in this country, not thoughts.
I understand numbers, though. Many of the public monuments will be moved or destroyed. Le’s not be appallingly smug and self-righteous about it. It’s about power and politics, not right or wrong.
If we are going to move towards God’s Kingdom, we take a few steps backwards with your paragraph above.
This isn’t personal and I am open to being persuaded to your side on this.
All monuments are by nature historical. Merely being history does not justify their display in the public square. History should be remembered, yes but not necessarily celebrated.
The Confederacy may be historical and recognition of confederate soldiers and leaders may be for some a matter of heritage. Yet, the very presence of these cultural/historical icons is a reminder that men fought and died for the right to own another person. To the ancestors of those slaves and those that share the history of racial oppression, many Confederate monuments are a symbol of our history of racism and the subjugation of a people. Rather than memorials of an event or person, they function as celebrations of the past. The public celebration of Confederate history communicates to people of color not a pride of heritage but a continuing feeling of racial superiority. (Indeed, many of those monuments were erected to communicate precisely that).
And my point in even bringing up the issue is that if the celebration of the Confederacy is a hindrance to gospel unity (and it is) then it’s time to let it go.
I’m not from the south. My family on both sides are from the north. But most people who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves.
Too many times I read on this blog factual errors. My request is for all of us, including me, to not ascribe something as fact when it is not.
Thanks
It’s not a factual error, it’s just historical shorthand. I don’t dispute your factual addendum on how a the average confederate soldier may or may not have been motivated or whether or not the average Confederate soldier owned slaves. None of that changes the fact that the right to own slaves was a key issue at stake in the war between the states and is THE key issue in our historical remembrance of the significance of the event.
It matters not to our African-American brothers whether the average confederate was a racist or what the multi-faceted reasons the South fought against the North. Or, for that matter, if the SBC was technically founded because of missions and not slavery directly … the bottom line is that in our history, an entire society thought that slavery was an entirely acceptable system and fought for the right to determine the matter for themselves thus, they fought for the right to own slaves.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell, 1984
“Fight tooth and nail to preserve Confederate monuments and flags, venerate Confederate people and events—the cultural artifacts that celebrate white supremacy. Do all this while refusing to acknowledge how the preservation of such symbols perpetuate a racial caste system and a longing among some citizens for the days when America was “great” (i.e. when women, ‘coloreds’ and the rest knew their place, and white men were more dominant).”
Jemar Tisby, 2017
Too bad only one side is permitted here on some of these issues.
David R. Brumbelow
David, copy and paste. No one is denying you your viewpoint. If it’s relevant, I’d rather see the salient points and am unlikely to go to your blog to get it.
David, feel free to discuss, but simply using this site to promote yours is not in good taste.
And the whining gets a little old. You are a frequent commenter here, and very seldom do we moderate your comments. You really should get the chip off your shoulder. The whole “only one side is permitted” thing is so patently absurd that you should be ashamed to say it. Look at how many people have said things that disagree and infuriate the authors. Do better, David.
I speculate, rank conjecture, that you don’t know much about this.
You said, “The Confederacy may be historical and recognition of confederate soldiers and leaders may be for some a matter of heritage.” Really? “May be…” You need to read more, meet more people. There’s no “may” about it. This is you imposing your bias on the subject.
You said, “The confederacy may be historical…” Really? “May be…”
You said, “Merely being history does not justify their display in the public square.” I’m a bit troubled by your phrase “the public square.” Do you mean in any public manner or in a government owned piece of land, park, courthouse, etc.? If the former, we need to talk more. If the latter, then “justified” is, as always, subjective and subject to political whims. Please answer this question, since “the public square” has a particular meaning.
You categorize these in a manner that demands your position be accepted, no discussion allowed. I do not accept your language.
You call such things a “celebration”. Again, your bias imposed on the whole. It’s history. It will be remembered, taught even.
Some of these monuments are private. Presumably, you stick with First Amendment rights on these?
Some are in public cemeteries. They are no less potent there if one accepts your broad generalization. These should be destroyed?
Some of these are memorials with names of those who died. These have to go?
Hundreds, thousands are in publicly owned battlefields. These potent icons must go?
You wrote, “Do all this while refusing to acknowledge how the preservation of such symbols perpetuate a racial caste system and a longing among some citizens for the days when America was “great” (i.e. when women, ‘coloreds’ and the rest knew their place, and white men were more dominant).” Is this quoted approvingly.
Nonsense. Incendiary bias. You have had better days here, Todd.
The closest you have to a point is that a miscreant few who are on the extreme margins use these monuments as a foil for their racist nonsense. The attitude behind this will not be eliminated by excising history.
This is your crusade. I think you mean well.
Good show Plodder (if I may say so and the floor will not cave underneath us). 🙂
Rob
William, my post intends to speak in generalities to speak to the basic principle that some things need conserving and others progression. You want to get bogged down on my veiled reference to Confederate icons and get specific on one particular issue. My general statement was affirmed in at least one specific way at SBC 2016 in the Confederate flag resolution.
I am not making the specific case that each and every Confederate symbol is only and always evil. I am making the general case that in our effort to conserve our cultural history and heritage we be willing to give up symbols and icons that celebrate our racist history. I have NOT made any specific case about what symbols or to what extent we should remove them. I do, however, call us to be willing to pursue progress on this issue and seek to understand what many of these symbols communicate to our brothers and sisters of color.
As for the use of “may”, I am using those words deliberately. As you have correctly surmised, southern perceptions of Confederate history is not a subject on which I am well versed. I am, however, very familiar with how Confederate imagery is perceived by the African-American community generally and our SBC brethren specifically. My point is that conserving heritage must acknowledge both our racist past and what the celebration of that past communicates in the present.
Obviously these issues are not simple. That’s why in my concluding paragraph I noted “to sort that all out takes critical thinking, active listening, a dose of humility, hard work, and a willingness to see things from a perspective other than our own.” I include myself in that assessment.
Todd- “To the ancestors of those slaves and those that share the history of racial oppression, many Confederate monuments are a symbol of our history of racism and the subjugation of a people. Rather than memorials of an event or person, they function as celebrations of the past. The public celebration of Confederate history communicates to people of color not a pride of heritage but a continuing feeling of racial superiority. (Indeed, many of those monuments were erected to communicate precisely that).”
Except this CNN Poll of 2015 indicates that isn’t true-
Renaming streets and highways named after Confederate leaders
…………..Support-Oppose-No Opinion
All Americans 29% 68% 3%
Blacks 33% 63% 3%
Whites 26% 71% 3%
Removing tributes to those who fought for the Confederacy from public places
……………Support-Oppose-No Opinion
All Americans 26% 71% 3%
Blacks 49% 50% 2%
Whites 21% 75% 3%
William:
I predicted several years ago to friends that the statues in Richmond and other places would come down in our life times. They disagreed.
But what are we going to do with Stone Mountain?
It is inevitable, especially when 1 in 8 or 1 in 7 in the US is now foreign born. They can hardly get US history basics, but Civil War history is really not interesting to them.
All of the monument issues do raise an important point for me.
How in the world does the current movement stop? How does it not move to Washington, Jefferson et al.?
And if it does that, what about the ideas that founded the nation? Free speech, freedom on religion, free press, freedom of association, the right of private contract, the right to acquire and own property.
I am not bothered by the anti-Confederate monument movement. But I do get concerned about the destruction of ideas that were first instituted on this globe by slaveholders.
I would hate to see those ideas go. I believe they are central to human freedom.
It’s already been proposed that Stone Mountain be sanitized and Davis, Lee, and Jackson be removed. Tough task, though. One of the Muslims of centuries ago got a start at tearing down one of the pyramids.
I can understand rolling back the CSA stuff done in the 1950s after Brown v. Board. I can understand some relocations.
Todd, I appreciate your response. I only chose this as the first of the points of yours to which I object. More to come…:)
I understand you wanted to offer a list of generalities that you see as being necessary to move forward. Still, you own the words and it really would be good to reflect a bit on how you paint this stuff.
And, would you mind explaining what you meant by “the public square”?
I’ll take your critique, but sometimes it’s OK to speak in generalities and to use “we” statements as a rhetorical device to indicate that we collectively own our history and our problems even if individually we are not responsible for them. I know that “we” don’t like the first person plural on this blog and I have heard this critique before as I make “we” statements fairly often, but I use them anyway to indicate my earnest belief that all of us (i.e. “we”) are responsible to work toward unity and to see things change, whether or not we as individuals are individually guilty of particular attitudes or actions.
As for “the public square,” I meant (again generally) publicly owned spaces where that which is remembered/celebrated would seem to speak on behalf of the whole society. I’m not married to that phrase and am happy to drop it if you have a better way to express it.
“While wanting to conserve our family and cultural heritage, we must also acknowledge that there are many parts of our history that were sinful and be willing to change and abandon the cultural symbols, nostalgia, and iconography of a time when we fought for the right to treat fellow humans as chattel property and engage in all kinds of evil towards entire races of people.”
Does this mean we have to “change or abandon” the United States flag?
…the flag that flew over the slave ships?
Todd,
I am still confused on who the “we” are.
White people?
The SBC?
White SBC?
AllChristians?
Just USA Christians?
Just southern Christians?
White Christians?
Just southern white Christians?
Just readers of Voices?
I’m serious. Who do you mean by “we”?
I’m from the north, my ancestors were always north. No one in my family ever owned slaves.
I joined the SBC 7 years ago.
If I am included in the “we” is it just because of my skin color and where I attend worship service?
Todd,
“While wanting to conserve our family and cultural heritage, we must also acknowledge that there are many parts of our history that were sinful and be willing to change and abandon the cultural symbols, nostalgia, and iconography of a time when we fought for the right to treat fellow humans as chattel property and engage in all kinds of evil towards entire races of people.”
My ancestors fought against slavery not for it.
Todd-
First off good job on the article. I think it is really well done and makes some points that many shy away from in our day and time.
Second, I hope to try and steer away the convo from the rabbit trail of Confederate monuments- which were not even the point of the article- and back to your premise, that conservative politics don’t always sync with Christianity.
I got to visit with Michael Wear recently- former Obama staffer and evangelical Christian- and one of the items we talked about was the need in Democratic circles for a voice for evangelical Christianity. He feels that the bias in the Dem party against Christians is growing worse, and he is working from the inside to change that.
I see a different bias in the GOP. That bias largely seems to center around those who are conservative on right to life and marriage issues, but who are more centrist, or dare I say liberal, on social issues, especially as related to poverty, policing, and racial injustice- including immigration. Those who hold these views are often dismissed as RINOs, SJWs, and other derogatory terms.
I get from scripture that ALL of those issues I just listed are connected to Christian faith and practice. And it would seem if we want our politics to be influenced by Scripture, we would want to be comprehensive, rather than selective.
What way do you see forward for Christians in the “conservative” stream? How do we go about changing the conversation to include a broader based set of issues, so don’t continue to wind up with politicians who claim our faith, but get elected and deny it by their actions?
One option is to form a third party with our evangelical brothers and sisters who share our values but hold them in a different hierarchical order and thus vote democrat (this is true of many of our brothers and sisters of color).
The other option, is to win the hearts of conservative brothers (which I attempted to do here) to expand their view of Conservatism. My own expansion is a direct result of my personal efforts toward racial unity and my attempt to understand why my African-American brothers who agree with me on theology and mission (not to mention abortion and gay marriage) differ with me on politics — why all my white friends believed that voting Republican was the Christian thing to do and couldn’t understand why any believer could vote Democrat while my black friends believed the exact opposite.
I only saw two choices: (1) Either, my black friends are wrong, theologically deficient, are not thinking biblically about politics and putting personal ideology over biblical fidelity OR (2) There is something I’m missing about why Black Christians see politics differently than I.
I chose the latter.
As I studied the issue, listened to my brothers, and sought understanding, I came to realize that not every Conservative value is a Christian one, and that there are a host of Christian values other those championed by conservatives — issues that my black and hispanic friends saw as more important and timely than abortion and gay marriage. Still not enough to get me to vote Democrat in any national or state election, but enough to make me realize that political conservatism and the Christian worldview are not the same thing.
One practical thing I did last year is to join with one of my Black conservative friends to petition our Indiana Republican party to add a strong commitment to racial reconciliation to the state party platform. Now trying to petition our governor to act on that platform. I believe people can be persuaded and will continue to work to that end.
Ryan:
I wish you the best in your effort to inject some stream of Christian faithfulness into the Democratic party.
As to your view of a “comprehensive” application of Scripture to politics, I would again suggest applying that approach on the basis of wisdom and not Bible verses. Jesus would like my budget, Jesus likes poor people, Jesus likes immigrants etc. is the kind of thing that creates more, not less, division.
I had not perceived that “Social Justice Warrior” is considered an epithet.
Having some knowledge about the origin of the term “social justice” (btw, what it means now is nothing like what it meant when coined), and seeing some young SBCers use it, I would have assumed “Social Justice Warrior” would have been apt. I will refrain. Thanks for the warning.
Finally, a book that you might enjoy reading is Whittaker Chambers’ “Witness”. I submit that a person cannot really understand the social and economic history of the US and the various positions people take on these issues and their world views without having read that book. Many evangelicals have not read it, but they have come to adopt its positions even though they haven’t read it. Let me know if you ever get around to it. You may not agree with some of it, but it would give you a great insight into the evangelical mind. And that is true even though Chambers was never an evangelical.
Of course, Billy Graham is also a big reason many evangelicals in the US reject collectivism.
Guys like Walter Reuther of the UAW were Christians, and pursued collectivization as a Christian goal. The same was true of William Jennings Bryan.
But the publication of the Fundamentals, the mainline seminaries’ rejection of biblical truth and the resultant establishment of conservative seminaries, the horrors of communism that came to light after the war, the atomic bomb race, Billy Graham and his progeny have all coalesced to make evangelicals a conservative lot.
And liberals went the other way. Those who wanted to pursue collectivism full bore were not interested in quoting Bible verses along the way. In fact, they disdained them.
Where we are today is the product of about 100 years.
Louis,
I’m not attempting to do anything with any political party. That’s my friend Michael. 🙂
Todd,
I agree with you in the third party idea. Was wondering if that was part of where you were going. Sounds like we have been on similar journeys in the last decade. Really appreciate your voice.
Stay the course and know there is at least one fellow traveler out here with you.
William, Mike and others. I have edited the post to change some of the “we” language to what I hope is a more fair and palatable argument while preserving the sense of our corporate responsibility on these matters. To answer Mike’s question above, the “we” to which I refer is spelled out in the opening paragraph: religious conservatives.
I hadn’t thought about the Pyramids. We in the world are they still standing?
And those temples to foreign gods and such in Rome and Athens.
It’s interesting to ponder how Christians of another era treated those pagan statues. They weren’t threatened by them at all.
I am glad that the Popes, Archbishops and such did not insist on destroying all of the statues and buildings of bygone eras. Even though I recognize the spiritual evil of the religious systems and men represented there.
Islam, of course, takes a different view of this.
Todd,
Thank you for both ageing my question and making changes.
Now let me address another thing.
First, I assume you mean by religious conservatives you mean Christians.
That’s how I take it.
Given that then let me address this:
“While wanting to conserve our way of life, we must also acknowledge that some segments of society and minority groups have been kept from enjoying the privileges we take for granted and work to change so that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is available to all peoples.”
The latter part isn’t Christian. It’s American. The Bible no where promises to anyone, while on this earth: the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our goal as Christians is not to help people experience these things, but instead to aid them to experience God which might include death, slavery, and persecution for the Name.
Our call is not social engineering or the making of a better society. And good thing for we Christians have been the dominant religion in the USA and our society is twirling down the flush hole.
It certainly wasn’t the aim of the NT believers and yet their actions changed the world for the better.
For they were consumed not with social things but in caring for each other and preaching the Word.
Those aren’t Christian rights. And they’re not Biblical goals for the church.
Sounds like an argument for not engaging in politics at all. If that is the case, then you are right that Christians do not have a mandate to seek equality or a just society.
But we are involved in politics and we do enjoy these rights for ourselves so it is certainly consistent with the Christian faith to thus pursue liberty and justice for all.
While our American values are not in themselves Christian, justice certainly is and the aims of treating others equally and extending those same American rights and privileges to all segments of society are indeed consistent with Christian values and are worth pursuing as Christians engaged in a democratic society.
Todd,
Note that your answer moved the goal posts. The topic was life liberty and the pursuit of happiness which you turned into liberty and justice. Why did you do that?
You mean some Christians enjoy these rights. In this world now and accross time many have not. Now we in USA have been blessed by God but they are not rights we enjoy from Him but blessings.
Now our instructions to aid our neighbors, to feed and clothe the poor person who crosses our doors or lives in our community, and to aid those in need, like victims of disasters, is something I think most of our churches are doing already.
Paul enjoyed at times his rights as a Roman citizen but where are his instructions to the churches to extend those rights to the many non-citizens in the areas he evangelized and wrote letters to?
There are none.
Instead the focus was on the Gospel and loving first the church. And that they did and look what happened: they changed the world for the better.
But you are saying we have a duty to do what the Bible does not instruct us to do. As citizens we can vote. But as the church there is no Biblical mandate to change laws and rules and governments and societal norms. There are rules for us on how we should treat others as individuals: with mercy and dignity. But we are not called to right the wrongs of society.
Besides Todd, when we as Christians were dominant in the USA, and a political force to be reckoned with, did we stop society’s free fall into ungodliness?
Consider that what secular people call rights we know are blessings from God. Now when we read the Bible what becomes a people who are blessed by God but turn away from Him to all sorts of sin and ungodliness?
Well in King Herod we see a terrible end. In King Nebue see him turned into an animal like. And in the people of Israel we see disaster and ruin.
So brother Todde have two paths set before us: the NT Christians who focused on the Word and the preaching of the Gospel and not on changing civil society but did indeed change society for the better. And the other path where people focused on the blessings but turned away from the One who gave them the blessings and disaster and ruin followed.
Finally, the blessings we enjoy in the USA are because of God and His will to work through us to reach more of the world with the Gospel. Because we honored Him we were blessed over and over. We don’t own that blessing noR is it ours to share except as we are instructed to in the Word.
Mike,
I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here. You’re talking about whether and to what extent Christians should be involved in politics at all. You’re arguing that American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should not be pursued by Christians at all. That’s a different discussion than my argument that Christian political conservatives who are already involved in politics should broaden their priorities and that if we enjoy and pursue those values politically, we should pursue them for all and not just ourselves. Not to mention the fact that the NT context of living under the rule of a Roman emperor is not at all the same as living in a country with a government of the people by the people for the people.
Two different topics, two different sets of goal posts.
We all have different spiritual gifts, passions & experiences. We are different parts of the body. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. If only we could LISTEN to one another & respect one another’s giftedness. If only our we were trained in church to trust one another in revealing our differences, and to exchange perspectives & conviction with gentleness, humility and mutual grace. But the disdain & partiality of politics is ubiquitous. We really need to fight it.
Ryan:
Here is a site you might find interesting. It’s one of the published papers called “The Fundamentals” which were written about 100 years ago.
There is one on “The Church and Socialism”. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/torrey_ra/fundamentals/71.cfm
R.A. Torrey was one of the editors of The Fundamentals, but his particular article was written by Erdman, then a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. This is obviously before Machen and the other faculty left Princeton to form the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.
For any of you who take the time to read this, you will find it fascinating. I suspect you may also read some quotes that you have heard over the years. I did. I swear I could hear Criswell, Rogers, Stanley, and others saying some of this, even if unattributed.
Reading this will give you a good view of where theologically conservative Christians are on economic issues. In my view, we haven’t moved much from this. Except for the reinforcement that came with the discovery of the purges and horrors in Communist lands which were revealed to the West beginning in the 1940s.
Will check that out. Thanks for the tip.
I have been walking thru a personal study of Bonhoeffer this year. I’m reading Ethics right now which has some fascinating insights for 21st century American politics.
I personally am in favor of not seeing symbols of the confederacy displayed in some kind of positive light, and yes, I see them displayed way up here in far northern NY. But I am not for eradicating such symbols from everywhere. I am not proud of our country’s slavery past, but as Americans, we own it. No sense trying to pretend it didn’t happen. But the bottom line is: This is America. If a town, city, or municipality legally moves to remove Confederate symbols, so be it. That’s democracy. Likewise if they choose to retain them, so be it. Protest, write letters to the editor, run for office, or do whatever is legally within your power to effect change, but until you convince them, live with it or move.
Ryan:
Welcome.
I posted that before your other response.
Michael Weir spoke recently at a church here locally on a panel with 2 other folks. I wanted to go hear him but I missed it.