Government and the Christian
It is right that Christians be "persecuted for righteousness' sake." It is to be expected when we are fulfilling the actions pertaining to God's kingdom. However, Peter (in the New Testament) mentions that supposed Christians may also be persecuted for evil doing - which is nothing to rejoice in. We are to be above board such that the world cannot nail us for incorrect actions.
We should never cease from actions just because the world does not look favorably on them. We should not refuse to take part in government just because the world would prefer that we not be involved. However, oppositions from the world to Christian involvement in government may suggest some valid reasons for Christians to not be involved. For instance, I don't think it is necessarily right for Christians to force non-Christians to conform to Christian moral standards. There is no eternal benefit to an individual who follows God's teachings without a changed heart.
Let's look at the gay marriage issue. If a Christian should not oppose the gay lifestyle for non-Christians based on Christian moral principles, and if the gay lifestyle is not deemed bad for a society based on secular values, he has no reason to vote 'no' on a gay marriage measure. (And yet, if a Christian is involved in government can he rightly vote "yes" on a gay marriage proposition, which would be in a way supporting it?)
The world would look more favorably on President Bush if he had not invaded Iraq. If he had followed Jesus teachings about not returning an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, he would have left the Iraqis to themselves. However, (and I'm not saying Iraq should have been invaded based on even earthly values) I don't think an earthly government should be run on the principles of the heavenly kingdom. When God directed the Israelites in the establishment of an earthly kingdom, he commanded the use of force and revenge. Those are not appropriate for a Christian to execute. Therefore, it would seem to follow that Christians should not be US Presidents.
Even if the government was capable of performing its goals without harming a person, the goals of Christians and an earthly government are different. Eg, Christians are not to view the world selfishly. They are to turn the other cheek and give to those who ask of them. According to such principles, Christians would not turn anyone away at their borders. That, however, could result in an inappropriate population increase and would make it very easy for terrorists to enter.
A government cannot be run one hundred percent on Christian principles - but I guess we could pick and choose which parts of government we can be involved in - stay out of the army, stay out of the police force, stay out of the jury, don't vote on issues about which the Christian viewpoint could not work in government. But if we do not belong in those aspects of government, isn't it an unequal yoke for us to be involved in it at all? The goals of the Christian are heavenly, the goals of the worldling are earthly. Some principles can be used in both the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, but not all of them. Why be involved in something you cannot support in all aspects?
We should never cease from actions just because the world does not look favorably on them. We should not refuse to take part in government just because the world would prefer that we not be involved. However, oppositions from the world to Christian involvement in government may suggest some valid reasons for Christians to not be involved. For instance, I don't think it is necessarily right for Christians to force non-Christians to conform to Christian moral standards. There is no eternal benefit to an individual who follows God's teachings without a changed heart.
Let's look at the gay marriage issue. If a Christian should not oppose the gay lifestyle for non-Christians based on Christian moral principles, and if the gay lifestyle is not deemed bad for a society based on secular values, he has no reason to vote 'no' on a gay marriage measure. (And yet, if a Christian is involved in government can he rightly vote "yes" on a gay marriage proposition, which would be in a way supporting it?)
The world would look more favorably on President Bush if he had not invaded Iraq. If he had followed Jesus teachings about not returning an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, he would have left the Iraqis to themselves. However, (and I'm not saying Iraq should have been invaded based on even earthly values) I don't think an earthly government should be run on the principles of the heavenly kingdom. When God directed the Israelites in the establishment of an earthly kingdom, he commanded the use of force and revenge. Those are not appropriate for a Christian to execute. Therefore, it would seem to follow that Christians should not be US Presidents.
Even if the government was capable of performing its goals without harming a person, the goals of Christians and an earthly government are different. Eg, Christians are not to view the world selfishly. They are to turn the other cheek and give to those who ask of them. According to such principles, Christians would not turn anyone away at their borders. That, however, could result in an inappropriate population increase and would make it very easy for terrorists to enter.
A government cannot be run one hundred percent on Christian principles - but I guess we could pick and choose which parts of government we can be involved in - stay out of the army, stay out of the police force, stay out of the jury, don't vote on issues about which the Christian viewpoint could not work in government. But if we do not belong in those aspects of government, isn't it an unequal yoke for us to be involved in it at all? The goals of the Christian are heavenly, the goals of the worldling are earthly. Some principles can be used in both the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, but not all of them. Why be involved in something you cannot support in all aspects?
posted by Claire at 17:53
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home