Rocking post.
Tis all i can say.

Amen. Thank you for writing that.

This post addresses the social gospel that is being neglected, but neglects the spiritual gospel that is missing from the church.  IOW, the reason the government is going to ruins is the same reason the church is not addressing the needs of the poor and needy: it is not hooked in to the Father.

Sure, some churches teach about God, but forget to teach us how to move into deep intimacy with Him.  Until we are so intimate with Him that He is abiding in us and we in Him the church is dead.

Other churches teach all the behaviors that would flow out of an intimate relationship with our Father, but miss out on His character completely, so that they abide in emotion rather than the One True God. 

Until we know our God through scripture and His Spirit so intimately that we know His heart from moment to moment, hearing His leadings, not guessing WWJD, the church will be dead, the poor and needy will find themselves in worse and worse situations and the government will only grow more corrupt.

In every way let God's love in to change you, and lead everyone who's hurting to Him to get their needs met.  No flow of love from Him - no healing and no life.

i think both things need to be done: feeding the poor and lobbying congress. we have people who are able to do both and they should, as God calls them to. i think it's definitely wrong to vote for someone simply because they "claim" to be one religion or another. we should all know by now that politicians lie and it's difficult to believe the claims of any one candidate. i'm finding it difficult to choose which candidate i'd like to see in the white house. either way, i know that God will do things for His glory, despite the efforts of man... or president.

If we are going to be a great nation, we need to live up not only to the Gospel, but our own pledge as "one nation UNDER God." We need to stop trying to ignore Him and His role in our nation's life. Does God belong in the White House? Well, whether He does or not, He is there regardless.

I remember in late Feb. 2000 Senator Mc Cain gave the infamous Agents of Intolerance speech.

We are subjects of a King and a Kingdom living in a republic, called to change the world with a bottom up approach. We should be infecting our families, our workplace, our community, and those we interact with, with Kingdom living and the love of God exhibited in our lives.

I am very political, but always try to point out our hope is not in the government, our voting Jesus into power. We should live unapologetically Christian lives and speak from a Christian worldview. If the church would get back to the business of the church, and the people of God would be relaying His message of Hope, rather than a political one, that is when we will be looked at again as a city on the hill, the stability in society, salt and light and they would "know we are Christians by our love"

Excellent post.  John

But is it really right to force the free Americans who do not believe in God to allow Christianity back into politics? That is the real question here. Yes, we claim to be "One Nation Under God." Yes, our currency does read "In God We Trust." However, the separation of Church and State was put into place for a reason -- there is a reason Christianity should be kept separate from politics. Yes, I'm fine with our leaders being Christians. I have no qualms with it. My worry is the people who will be forced to believe in something they don't, or who will be affected by those that push something they don't want to believe in.

The pilgrims did leave England for religious reasons. America was founded on a Christian belief. However, the more people that immigrate here, the more religious tolerance we need. I really, really hate it when I see a religion being forced upon someone. I was talking with my mother about it just this morning, actually. Let people choose Christianity on their own.

I am not for gay marriage. However, I'm also not for forcing a Christian belief system on the homosexuals and thus forbidding them from marrying. What they do is not our business. Everyone is their own person. If they don't want to follow our Christian morals, don't make them.

I am not for abortion. Again, however; I'm also not for forcing a Christian belief system on mothers. Yes, I do believe abortion is wrong in every form and fashion. But people have their own choices, right?

If either of these groups were to ask my opinion, I'd outright tell them. I hate it. I don't approve of it. But it's not my right to judge them. In fact, no Christian has the right to judge. Both Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 tells us that if we judge, then we will be judged.

Again, I'm not seeking to offend anyone. These are my beliefs though, and my honest answer.

The change will begin in each individual's heart. Spiritual revolution happens on an individual basis, one soul at a time. And when the nation is overcome by revival, the nation will change its attitude as well. The church needs to preach both repentance/salvation and social duty, without excluding one or the other.

Thanks all for the comments and encouragements.  Just a few thoughts that I wasn't able to fit in the original entry:

I am not saying that our government shouldn't conduct itself with moral principles.  It should and it ought to be held accountable to its people and their general consensus about morality.  However, it should NOT be governed by fiat.  What I mean by this is that simply saying, "Well, it's in the Bible, therefore it should be law" is no longer a sufficient reason to qualify legislature.  I believe true justice, in the limited context of the American democracy (not theocracy!), means being fair to all citizens.

What does this look like on a practical level for Christians who want to be responsible citizens that participate in their government?  It means appealing to people's fundamental sense of justice, and not always necessarily from an explicitly Biblical perspective.  For example, we believe that stealing and extortion is wrong because it shows disrespect to the autonomy and self-dignity to a person created in the image of God, the ultimate autonomous and dignified being.  Plenty of people will agree that stealing/extortion is wrong without appealing to a specific Bible verse.  But on that same level, in considering legislation regarding homosexual unions, while Christians may disagree with its practice, they must respect that same human autonomy and dignity.  Whether or not legislation ought to be for or against it then depends on a careful and reasonable consideration of the sanctity of autonomy, the sanctity of marriage, the difference between rebuke within a body of believers and a criminal/legal offense, etc. etc. etc.

Politics is a nuanced and delicate field that can be redeemed and transformed by Christian perspectives just like any other discipline: engineering, history, psychology, medicine, you name it.  But it then also demands the same rigor, integrity, and humility that we use in the analysis and application of other fields.  It deserves to be approached in a way that is free of manipulations and machinations designed to coerce other people, to pull the wool over their eyes in favor of a particular viewpoint.  If what Christians believe in is indeed the truth, it should be something that is liberated and liberates.  When Christian approaches to politics fall into the same power struggles as conventional methods, we must question the direction, purpose, and "rightness" behind such efforts.

This entry was originally written to put a Christian approach to politics in a better context and I hope it has challenged and encouraged you in some way.  =)

@abhorrentphantasm@xanga - Any historian will tell you that the separation of Church and state was put in place to protect the Church from Persecution, not to protect the State from Christian influence.  At the time the freedom of religion right was put in the constitiution, the founding fathers were saying you should be free to be a quaker, a puritan, a catholic, or any other "religion."  In modern day speech, it was really more a freedom of denomination.  That is not to say our nation should be a theocracy, but to try and guard it from Christian influence is taking it a step too far.

The federal government doesn't have the right to define marriage, just like it never really had the right to determine Roe V. Wade.  These are laws that should be made state by state on an individual basis.  When Californians voted in a referendum to make Gay Marriage Illegal, that should have been the end of it, as it is that state's right to do so under the guidelines of the constitution.  Overturning Roe v. Wade does not automatically outlaw Abortion, it just returns the right to the states to make it illegal.  The real question on Abortion is whether or not it is murder, and if it is, saying it's none of your business and they can do what they want is like saying we shouldn't have laws against killing people.

Also, I don't think it's judging someone to show them where Leviticus 18:22, along with much of Romans Chapter 1, says Homosexuality is wrong.  Nor is it juding to show where a person under G-d-given Hebrew law could be put to death for causing miscarriage in a woman who was known to be pregnant.  People who cling heavily to "do not judge lest ye be judged" forget to read parts like Galatians 6:1- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.  But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted (NIV).  Hiding behind "do not judge" has caused far too many people not to take stands on their morals.  If I remember correctly, Jesus got so pissed off at the money changers in the markets that he chased them around with a Whip for their immorality.  To stand by idly while someone else does something immoral is not what the good Lord had in mind.

@shedinator@xanga - I stand corrected then, on more than one thing. And yes, I do believe abortion is murder. That's my stand on it. I do not enforce that on the mothers, and I am in no way saying that killing is legal. That is an assumption that has been made through my wording, and I am guilty as charged of making it sound that way.

However, to my view on homosexuality: obviously, if they were intent on following the Christian bible, they wouldn't be making that choice. While showing them that chapter is not judging (I believe it is judging when Christians tell them they are going to hell because they've been bad and marriage is between a man and a woman. Also realize, I am not trying to generalize this, but there are Christians out there who DO do that.), it is trying to influence them with the Christian religion.

In regards to guarding it taking things a step too far -- if you weren't a Christian, would you want the religion influencing -your- government? Sometimes, I think too many of us are trying to see it through the Christian prospective, and that only. Yes, I respect most Christians, and I understand their desire to convert more people to our religion. But do Christians not take it a little too far with some of their ideals and actions?

And just to make it clear: I -am- against abortion, as I have stated three times now. It is murder -- especially after the first trimester. However, I'm not going to stand out there and call a woman names because of her decision.

And again, I'm not meaning to offend. :D

@abhorrentphantasm@xanga - I have no qualms whatsoever telling someone I believe they are going to hell, but not on the grounds of a particular sin.  The fact of the matter is, if I claim to believe the Bible, which I do, then I believe anyone apart from Christ is going to Hell.  So a Homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual who is not a Christian, so far as I can tell, is not going to make it to heaven.  To say so is little more than a statement of fact.  It just happens to be one that offends people- sort of like when you look someone in the eye and tell them they are morbidly obese- it's not polite, but it's true, and can be supported by facts, so it is not judging.  That does not mean I go up to my Gay friends (I seem to have more of those every day) and tell them they're headed to hell, but I do tell them it's wrong, and that I think they should reconsider, and they respect me for that.  On the other hand, if a person is claiming Christianity AND Homosexuality, then it is little more than holding them accountable to tell them they can't practice both. (You can have urges, it's when you act on them or linger on them that it becomes sin...)

And actually, there are not very many Christian morals that aren't universally held.  Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Buddhism... etc.  All believe the taking of human life is wrong at any stage, all make similar claims about how marriage should work, and for the most part they agree on how one goes about living a good life- with the exception of which Deity you should worship.  A liberal media introduces us to the 2% of the world's population that do not believe in some form of higher power, transcendent morals, and absolute right and wrong, and they allow these people to profess their views as though they are generally held.  Consequently, the majority of the American public learns these things and is trained to feel that taking a stand on their morals is being judgmental and bigoted.  In a sermon I gave a while back, I showed statistics that 98% of the world's population, and over 90% of Americans, believe in a moral god(elohim) of one form or another.  I then asked the question: If I hold up a gallon of milk with 2% fat in it, is that the same as holding up a stick of butter?  Obviously the answer is no.  So when we let 2% of the population speak for the majority, of course it's going to appear that things are one way when they are not. 

Secular Humanism (recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court) is taught in our schools as being "un-biased."  Teachers were taught 20 years ago to educate their students in "tolerance."  That has recently changed to "acceptance."  Some curricula are already encouraging students not only to accept other lifestyles, but to experiment in practicing them.  As a result, I know exactly what it feels like to be in a governmental system that is influenced by another religion, and no, I don't like it.  However, in a supposed democracy where the majority is supposed to rule, I do wonder what would have happened if the nation had held a vote every 4 years on whether or not Secular Humanism and Atheistic ideals should have been taught in the class rooms.  My guess is, it would have been rejected every time, and there would not be so many people walking around with re-programmed "PC" minds.  Despite the fact that it hasn't, I'd still be willing to put any moral law to a referendum vote, and I bet most of them would pass.