Is Christianity a political movement?
There is no denying Christianity is a movement. But is it political?
To be a political movement would mean Christianity was "of or relating to government or politics" (dictionary definition). The fact is Christianity is of and relating to God.
As people who live within the sphere of control of a government, Christians--just like all other people--are interested in what that government does. So to call Christianity a political movement you would also need to call labor unions, trade associations, and horse breeder clubs political movements, which would be absurd. However, they all have interests that are affected by government and they all work to influence laws and what government does. Yet none of them, including Christianity, are political movements.
However, there is an important relationship between government and Christianity that does not exist between government and other groups.
When this country was formed our founding fathers recognized the importance of religion and of Christianity in particular. So there is a unique relationship that used to exist between Christianity and our government. This relationship no longer exists officially, but fortunately it still--in part--exists through its cultural influence. Our founding fathers recognized that Christianity will exist without our government, but our form of government can not exist without Christianity.
I'm not the one saying this. Our founding fathers said it. Here are just a few quotes:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (Sign of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States)
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundations of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government." - George Washington (Father of Our Country).
The people who created our country and our government knew that what they were creating required people with morals and virtues, and that those came from religion (Christianity). That is the role Christianity plays in government.
To be a political movement would mean Christianity was "of or relating to government or politics" (dictionary definition). The fact is Christianity is of and relating to God.
As people who live within the sphere of control of a government, Christians--just like all other people--are interested in what that government does. So to call Christianity a political movement you would also need to call labor unions, trade associations, and horse breeder clubs political movements, which would be absurd. However, they all have interests that are affected by government and they all work to influence laws and what government does. Yet none of them, including Christianity, are political movements.
However, there is an important relationship between government and Christianity that does not exist between government and other groups.
When this country was formed our founding fathers recognized the importance of religion and of Christianity in particular. So there is a unique relationship that used to exist between Christianity and our government. This relationship no longer exists officially, but fortunately it still--in part--exists through its cultural influence. Our founding fathers recognized that Christianity will exist without our government, but our form of government can not exist without Christianity.
I'm not the one saying this. Our founding fathers said it. Here are just a few quotes:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (Sign of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States)
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundations of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government." - George Washington (Father of Our Country).
The people who created our country and our government knew that what they were creating required people with morals and virtues, and that those came from religion (Christianity). That is the role Christianity plays in government.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
13 Comments:
You remain ignorant of what's actaully going on in America. Here's a bit of reading matter to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_right
Your stance on gays and whether or not they can marry is political. Denying christian politics doesn't make them disappear, neither does drawing a hypothetical line based on a dictionary definition.
Speaking of dictionary definitions, here's one for you..
politics: n. 1. The science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.
So christianity does not concern itself with any of that?
I'm sorry but I must ask, are you not reading what I write before you comment on it--or am I just not writing clearly. I apologize if I am not clearing expressing what I'm attempting to say.
I though what I said is that Christians are very much involved in what the government does--just like many other groups you do not define as political movements. I don't deny Christians are involved in influencing government and I think, in agreement with our founding fathers, Christians should have more of an influence. That does not make a movement, it makes concerned citizens.
Also, what does fundamentalist Christianity have to do with understanding what's going on in America? The issue in America we are discussing is the attempt by activist homosexual community to take away the right of marriage from everyone else--by redefining marriage to be something totally different than what it now is. By making marriage into a selfish, self-centered means by which to get government benefits instead of a lifelong commitment to the relationship that is best for raising children.
Are you implying that I'm a Christian fundamentalist? I don't mind the label, but according to the definition you referenced I don't meet the requirements. I don't believe in banning books, or even preventing people from reading what they want to read (or look at). And the Bible plainly says drinking is okay, so prohibition is not based on Bible teaching. The Bible does teach that drunkeness is not acceptable or good, however, and I do trust in our Lord's word.
And why, for example, is wrong for a Christian fundamentalist to peacefully advocate for a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol? What you seem to be saying is that no one may advocate for any law or government regulation that you don't agree with. Sounds like fascism to me. Or maybe just certain groups should not be allowed to speak out or advocate for changes in laws, unless they agree with you. Sounds like discrimination (echos of rascism) to me.
What you seem to be doing is deciding what i am saying, and telling me. If you're capable of determining my point of view before i state it, then my participation in this dispute has become redundant.
Perhaps i should bow out gracefully and let you tell the world what I think?
In what way am I deciding what you are saying? I'm sorry, I can not make any sense of what you said. So I am asking you to clarify what you said (in your previous comment).
Hows does a definition of the religioous right relate to what is actually going on in America and to our discussion?
Why when I say that Christians are involved in politics/government, do you respond with an arguement saying Christians are involved in politics? Sorry, but I find that confusing.
Maybe I wasn't clear in what I said, which was: Just as our founding fathers said things should be, Christianity is not only involved in politics/government, it is an important part of the undergirding of our government.
I'm guessing you feel Christians should not be involved in politics. Who is allowed to be involved in politics and who is excluded from involvement in politics?
May Muslims participate in politics? May trade unions participate in politics?
I said christianity was a political movement. You said ... Yet none of them, including Christianity, are political movements ...
I'm getting bored with your shotgun approach to argument. You say a lot, not always coherently, and then defend the bits you choose. It shouldn't be a surprise to me because that's the way you and a lot of apologists use the bible to back up your beliefs. Frankly I am a bit disappointed at myself for getting side-tracked.
The point I want to make was to do with gay rights to marry. Your attempts to withhold this right are internally motivated and come from insecurity and a desire for control.
My thoughts on everything else, including the specific vagaries you incorporate into your personal belief system are not relevant so I don't want to argue about them anymore.
You continually refuse to answer direct questions. Why?
Your response to almost everything is a personal attack. Why?
You base your entire arguement on a "right" (homosexual "right" to marriage) that does not exist. You've not even shown that such a right exists. You only claim it does, but where does that "right" come from? You attempted to show it was the same as the women's sufferage or black civil rights movements. Yet in both cases women and blacks were asking for rights that already existed for others. That's not the case with homosexual marriage. There is no right to homosexual marriage. God never created that right. And all of history has recognized that it never existed.
You have a relative who was beaten because they were homosexual. Why not put your efforts and passion into something that will help prevent that in the future. Taking away other people's rights (the heterosexual community's right to hetersosexual marriage) will not accomplish that. The solution is: people living, and accepting in their hearts, that the right way to live is to love your neighbor--all of your neighbors, including those who are your enemies. That is the solution.
Look if you're feeling personally attacked because I don't agree with you then that's unfortunate. The world might be a nicer place if everyone said nice things to you and agreed with everything you said, but then again it might not. No point speculating..
We don't agree. You voice your opinion, I voice mine. Don't like it? You could
a) turn off comments on your blog
b) delete the bits you don't agree with
c) take the discussion offline
I don't care enough about you to personally attack you. I take issue solely with your message, because I know the end effect. You lack the data on which to base your conclusions - if you knew better you would think differently.
ps: spare me the love-thy-neighbour solution daddy-o, those are empty words coming from your mouth.
You may call me all the names you wish, I don't care. What's frustrating, however, is that it seems to be the basis of your arguements.
You are welcome to voice your opinion here all you'd like, but when the truth is not being spoken I will tend to point that out. If you disagree about what the truth is, please provide some facts or logic to back up what you say. I try to ask questions to better understand what you're saying, and my questions are ignored. But I'll try again:
What's the difference between a church that takes a stance on an issue in an election and a horse breeder's association that does the same thing? Are they both political movements? Why? Is the homosexual movement a political movement?
BTW: I only picked horse breeders because at times I work on ranch and am familiar with such organizations. It can be any type of group that takes a position on an issue in an election.
It seems that you disagree with my position because you've seen the result of hate. I understand and respect that.
The Bible tells us that hateful anger, even if it is not expressed in violent action, is the same as murdering someone. That person who has affected you, who acted out of hate, is a murderer in God's eyes.
Maybe the person who hated also claimed to be a Christian, I don't know. But Jesus said that anyone who does not love his neighbor does not love me (Jesus). Anyone who has hateful anger against someone else, even if it is hidden in their heart, is not a Christian. They will face judgement for their actions before Christ, and hopefully have already faced judgement in a court of law.
Hmm...This is a very interesting debate.
MTA: I have to say that you're kind of an idiot. No offense.
How can you possibly turn love into a selfish thing? How can you possibly assume that homosexual people only want to marry to reap government benefits? In case you hadn't noticed recently, the sanctity of marriage is no longer what it used to be. Take a look at a classic example: a young woman marries a terminally ill, wealthy, elderly man. How is that not reaping government benefits?
Why is it so wrong to allow two men or two women to have a lifelong commitment to each other and allow them to have a piece of paper saying so? Really, when it all comes down to it, marriage is simply a piece of paper. That lifelong commitment and spiritual attachment doesn't come with that piece of paper. So why is it so bad to let these people have that damn piece of paper?
I understand that marriage is a sacred, biblical thing. But what about civil unions? Or marriages, for homosexual couples that believe in the biblical sense of marriage? What is so wrong with that? How is allowing homosexual couples a lifetime of commitment (that is legally recognized by the government) taking the right of marriage away from heterosexual couples? You've said this numerous times in your argument, yet the reason behind it escapes me.
And another question: what is a legitimate reason other than religion that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry?
"The Bible tells us that hateful anger, even if it is not expressed in violent action, is the same as murdering someone. That person who has affected you, who acted out of hate, is a murderer in God's eyes." These are your words. How are you not commiting a hateful act by refusing this right to people to marry? How is that not hate? How are you so much better than them?
Thank you for your comments, Jesi.
Please keep in mind the date of the original post. It is now four years old. At that time the debate was about government and "contactual" benefits. HOWEVER, things have changed, and the change shows that what was stated by the pro-homosexual marriage "lobby" in 2004 was a lie. As soon as reciprical benefits became a possibility Christians felt was acceptable, the issue of benefits went away. We never hear it mentioned anymore. Homosexual marriage was never about benefits or love, it is about forcing acceptance of sin.
What is love?
There are many different types of love. Brotherly love. Lustful love. And love that gives, that desires and acts for the benefit of another person.
What I hear homosexuals say is, "I want..." Always self-centered and self focused. What I see you saying is that, if someone wants to engage in an activity in a loving way, then just because they want to do it, they should be able to do it.
That does not make sense to me.
I love my dog very much. I believe that if I skin my dog alive that dog will experience the greatest possible joy. Should I be able to do this? I truly love my dog. I truly believe it will benefit the dog greatly. Because I love and truly believe this, should I be allowed to do it?
Of course not!
That I love makes no difference. Love is an emotion that can mislead us and cause people to do very evil things.
That I believe it is benefitial makes no difference. What I believe does not make something true. Truth is not created by belief.
This is what makes a difference.
God created us in His image (Genesis 1) and we were created by God to glorify God through our representation of Him.
If a potter makes a vase that is mishapen and colored wrong, what do they do? They distroy the vase because it misrepresents who they are... it misrepresents their skill, artistry and craftsmenship.
Why can the potter destroy the vase? Because they made it. They own it. They can do what they want with it.
God made you. God gave you information that describes His character, such as the Ten Commandments. When you lie, or take something that is not yours, or covet, or do not have God as #1 in your life, or engage in homosexual acts, you are misrepresenting the character of God. And just as the potter destroys pots that misrepresent him, so does God allow those of His creation who misrepresent Him to go to hell.
What is marriage? It was created by God as an image of the relationship between the Son of God (Jesus) and His church. All Christians are a part of the body that forms the church, and are in a marriage relationship with Jesus.
A marriage that is anything other than one man and one woman, for life, desecrates marriage.
These are the spiritual consequences, which are the most important consequences of homosexual marriage, because they are about God. But, there are also social consequences to homosexual relationships. There is history... there is a reason why historically marriage has always been between one man and one woman. There are serious negative medical, physical, and psychological consequences of homosexual relationships that have alrady been documented in this blog.
So what is loving? To let people do whatever they want to do without regard to the spiritual, social and medical consequences? Not at all! The loving thing to do is to warn people about the where they are heading, and (this is what we need to do more of) be willing to help those who want help understanding what brought them to where they are in their lives and how they can deal with the root causes. Instead of enabling people to plunge into mental, physical and spiritual destruction, we should be supporting their healing and salvation.
By the way, I don't believe the "battle" over homosexual marriage is about marriage. It is about God. It is about not being willing to do God's will. It is about saying to God, "My will be done, not yours."
If you take God out of the equation, why is homosexuality bad? Take all religion out of it, and give me an objective answer.
That's all I ask.
If you take God out of the equation, why is homosexuality bad? Take all religion out of it, and give me an objective answer.
You can't take God out of the equation. God is our entire reason for existing.
Here are some links to previous posts in this blog that answer your question:
Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Are homosexual and heterosexual relatiuonships the same?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home