Are they really a good thing?
Why do Christians seem to want to use the government to promote religious views? There's the American Family Association, the Right to Life, and Christian Coalition of America, Moral Majority, and many others!
My main beef with the CPACs is that I do not believe that it is the government's responsibility to legislate a moral religious code.
Yes, I agree that homosexuality is immoral. I believe drug use is a bad idea. I believe pornography perverts what God intended to be a wonderful thing. I believe that alcohol is bad to drink. I believe that people should get married and then stay married instead of shacking up. I believe abortion is the most awful thing a person could do to the unborn.
But all of those things are my religious views. I believe those things because I believe in God and I believe the Bible is His word. They are, at their heart, religious views. I have no right to impose those views on others who do not hold the same.
The essence of Liberty is that every person, as long as the do not hurt another, should be allowed to live in the manner they desire. Whether I agree with it or not.
Think about history. The times of greatest Revival were when people were trying to separate the Church from government, not trying to join the two. The Reformation, the Great Awakening. The latter especially came about because of Baptists who believed that the government had no business involved in religion, hence the 1st Amendment! It was because of that Great Awakening that we had the liberty in America to worship as we chose. And now the Christian Right is trying to take it away!
Jefferson said that it didn't matter if a person worshipped one God or 100 as long as that person would faithfully obey and uphold the Constitution. How a person views the Constitution is a much better measure of how that person will be in a position of authority than how well they can spout Christian Right rhetoric. For example, I know that Obama will be a bad president simply because he does not believe the Constitution means what it says, or that it is even a good governing document. That's enough for me. His religious affiliation or social views are irrelevant. His position on the Constitution is enough to know that he will not govern well. Incidentally, there is a clause in the Constitution that says that no religious test would be given to those seeking public office. The Founders made it clear that one's religion should not be the defining characteristic of whether one was fit for public office.
But this post isn't about Obama. It is about Christians using the government to spread the gospel.
How can Christians really think that making laws will make people turn to Christ? It won't. Just like having too many rules in a church as a condition of service (legalism) will eventually kill the church. It destroys liberty.
True revival starts with the individuals in the church, not through government intervention. If Christians honestly wish to see a return of the American people to a Biblical worldview, they must stop using the political podium as a bully pulpit. I am in no way suggesting that Christians stop preaching the word or passing out tracts or witnessing. I am saying that using politics to do so is wrong.
Christians need to stop thinking that the Republican party is the moral party. It is not, if the people involved at the top are any measure. Christians need to do their duty and vote, not for the religious candidate but for the Constitutional candidate.
Christians must, to some degree, separate their religion from their politics. Our religion ought to make us honest and trustworthy in our political dealings-in all our dealings with others. It ought to make us willing to do our duty, and not shirk it (that includes jury duty!!). It is our duty to be engaged in politics. To make an educated decision about who to vote for, not an emotional one. It is our duty to obey the law, and to oppose those laws that violate the ultimate authority of our land, the Constitution (not the Bible).
It seems that many Christians believe that the final civil authority in America is the Bible. Actually, that would be the Constitution! Yes, the Bible should be the final authority for Christians in their personal lives. It is not, however, our final civil authority. This is what makes it hard for Christians I think. I know it was for me. How can we 'advocate' homosexuality or abortion? Shouldn't we seek laws to curb such immoral behavior? NO! The proper place to rail against those things is in the pulpit at church, not the political podium. Those things are personal decisions and ought to be left to an individual's conscience. I hear you, But...but...its WRONG!!! And? So is divorce or lying or lust or... Do you, Christian, want to make divorce illegal? or adultery? or fornication? Those things were also punishable by death in the Old Testament.
Step back, take a breath, consider...why do Christians wish to make America a "Christian" nation? Even John Adams, likely the most pious Founder, signed a treaty that said we were not! (that was a treaty with Morocco) Why cannot they distinguish between a nation of Christians and a Christian nation. Do you, Christian, really want a theocracy? Really? Like Rome? Or any number of Muslim nations?
And which version of Christianity do you wish to impose? The Mennonite one? Where women have to wear a head covering and the same style of dress all the time. The Catholic one? Where one must confess one's sins to a priest. The Mormon one? Where drinking Coke was a sin. The Jehovah's Witness one? Where celebrating any holiday or birthday is forbidden. The Puritan one? Where neglecting to pay the preacher or not going to church on Sunday landed you in jail. You see the trouble one can get into?
Morality is for the individual to decide, that is called soul liberty. One can choose to believe or not. We should not use the government to decide which morality is right. The government already has its hands too much in our personal lives! And it has a hard enough time handling what it is supposed to!
Christians deprive themselves of some wonderful allies for Constitutional governance because they draw a line in the sand that says, "If you aren't a Christian, you cannot be a true American." I doubt Jefferson could stand up under the scrutiny of the Christian Right! And yet he was a great Patriot!
I'll end with a quote. Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character.
It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations.
But the scriptures teach a different doctrine.
They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness.
It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government.
When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." ~Quotes by Noah Webster
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State." ~Thomas Jefferson
Case in point, one may believe it is fine and dandy to kill a baby, but Congress may legislate that it is as unlawful as killing one's unfaithful spouse.
In that regard, it may just as well be said that there is no separation of church and state in that Congress does not so legislate, in deference to those of a religious sort which believe it right to kill a baby or one's unfaithful spouse.
Congress may not legislate that one cannot think, write, speak, or read anything to the contrary, but they may legislate concerning the action.
The purpose of the wall of separation is not to create a legislative body based on the religion of secularism, moral neutrality, or lukewarmness, but one which is a cross-section of the nation at large; this is the purpose of the republican form of government, to represent, within the bounds of the Constitution.
The main commission of Congress is to protect the God-given rights of its constituents and masters, including children; and among these rights which this government was instituted to protect are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thoughtful and thought-provoking post. Very good point about the "foolishness of preaching" [1 Cor 1:21] being the best avenue for establishing a moral society; men's hearts aren't changed through legislation.
Civil laws are predicated on someone's -- or several someones' -- morality, immorality, or amorality. Personally, I can't separate my real being from any facet of my life, including things political. Christian is not something I do on occasion or where it's welcome. Christian is who I am. I therefore have an inescapable Christian worldview. To me, the case is clear that even Humanism is a religion, and in any case, laws are made in accordance with the beliefs of one or more persons, and in compliance with the directives of their god(s): Satan, Buddha, Mohamed, Self, YHWH, et al. In the absence of any standard, or a moral vacuum, there would be no laws in the world, including especially some specific amendments to the Constitution of the US, and broadly the Constitution, itself, for men had to determine "this would be good and right."
You write, "The essence of Liberty is that every person, as long as they do not hurt another, should be allowed to live in the manner they desire." Using this litmus test, dismembering or burning to death a baby should be illegal. It is not. It hurts me when the money my husband earns is used by the federal government -- in part and against my will -- for all manner of things I find morally repugnant and even harm me again through the results of the spending (e.g. misplaced foreign aid, training terrorists, and outcome based public education). Let the man who earned the money keep and spend or share it in ways he deems morally sound. Who, adhering to which religion, determines what will hurt another? I'm kinda achin' all over from what I perceive is great harm/hurt of varying descriptions -- physical, monetary, moral -- occurring to individuals all over this nation; and it's all been deemed "legal."
"Christian" attached to a politician's or candidate's bio is oft (not always) meaningless, except for fooling the uninformed. You make an excellent point, diminishing the verity of such a claim, as if it's an indicator of a man's moral compass; in today's world, it is too often not.
I don't know where the lines should be drawn, and I think you've made some excellent points in your post. The only thing really clear to me today is the USA is on a fast track to ceasing to exist in any form familiar to people my age. And while I tend to agree this was never a "Christian nation," and most assuredly was not a theocracy (and never was meant to be), the God of the Bible -- in my lifetime -- was once welcome in the public arena; He is not now. Few, but obviously powerful, were the voices against Him. Would there was the fervor for the furtherance of the kingdom of God we see now for the restoration of the republic. I rather think the former might ensure the latter, eh?
Christian Political Action Committees: Are they really a good thing? I agree with your no. Seems out of order to me.
"Christian is not something I do on occasion or where it's welcome. Christian is who I am."
I totally agree!! But I would say that even Christians do not have the right to force others who may not be to adhere to a strict moral code, as the examples I listed of different 'christianities'.
"The only thing really clear to me today is the USA is on a fast track to ceasing to exist in any form familiar to people my age."
AMEN and AMEN!!
"Using this litmus test, dismembering or burning to death a baby should be illegal. It is not."
It most certainly is...for a BORN child. I completely agree with you about abortion. I cannot fathom how a woman could go through with it...I cannot understand the physicians and nurses to perform them! I do not, however wish for abortion to be completely illegal, or for the unborn to be granted personhood under the Constitution...and here's why:
About two and a half years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. The most painful, emotionally and physically, experience of my life!! I ended up having surgery, which technically was an abortion...the tube had ruptured just before the surgery, and I mean JUST before...when the anesthesiologist came in to start the anesthesia. It assuaged my conscience some that the tube burst before the surgery...I really struggled with the decision to schedule the surgery...
Also, giving personhood to the unborn would also make illegal all hormonal birth control since we know that they are all abortifacient in nature. Now, I do not use bc, morally opposed to it, but there again, that is my religious belief.
It would have a tendency to lead to so much regulation (and the federal gov't LOVES to regulate!) what a pregnant woman could do or eat or drink.
So I still think that the way to combat abortion is not to legislate but to evangelize.
"Would there was the fervor for the furtherance of the kingdom of God we see now for the restoration of the republic. I rather think the former might ensure the latter, eh?"
Exactly right!! So if Christians would stop giving their money to lobbyists and instead spend it on gospel tracts we might see some amazing things happen! :) I am stealing your quote by they way! Putting it on my facebook profile! :)
""In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. "
That is very profound...and I think goes along with my post well. Too often politicians put the label Christian on their resume and too many Christians fall for it.
Post a Comment