You obviously aren’t seeing what I’m getting at, and perhaps never will. Sorry I “leave you cold.” Maybe it would be different if you would pay attention to the points people are trying to make, and not be so put off when they don’t simply “agree” with you.

I didn’t say Christians should SOMEHOW make disciples. I said that if we are “telling” and “guiding”, and we live basically as they do, it’s hypocrisy. The unbelievers have no problem seeing the hypocrisy in the Church. It’s only the Christians who can’t see it.

Also, we should remember that Jesus, and the early believers, “LIVED” right from wrong. Unbelievers could SEE a radical difference. This was the most compelling thing about them. There was genuine life and power in their midst, because they were obeying God and living truth. I guess you believe the same is true for present-day believers.

Christians today don’t have this dynamic, unless you believe that when the world sees us going to “Vacation Bible School”, and having “nice” entertainment, and pointing our own dirty fingers at abortionists, they will be convicted and want to enter the Kingdom. Is THAT what you think?

You also say, “A Christian is someone that believes those things and teaches others to do the same.”

If that’s the case, then the Mormons are better “Christians” than Christians are.

Saying that Christians should not “tell” or “guide”, but that we should somehow make disciples of those who will hear is very confusing. Now maybe you have a creative reinterpretation of what being a disciple of Jesus is but for a long time it has been thought of as living as Jesus lived, and Jesus told people right from wrong. He was good at it. Those who follow him should be good at it too. There will be no disciples made in the absence of the clear communication of the good things Jesus taught. A Christian is someone that believes those things and teaches others to do the same. Anyone that wants a quiet diferencial Christianity is avoiding the absolute self denial and the call to be a prophetic voice to the world in this age, as Jesus was in his. There is nothing more wrong than silence in the face of injustice.

C

Actually, we are commanded to live as genuine disciples of the Lord, Jesus, and to make disciples of any and all who will hear and obey truth.

Christians trying to “tell” and “guide” others into right versus wrong, when their lives are basically the same as others, is one of the many reasons that “Christianity” is in the mess it is, and why the world points at the Church and says, “Hypocrites!”

Check out my blog if you’re willing.

Many Atheists have not been confronted with Christianity in the most real sense of the term. Reading a little of the bible and hearing a few sermons is not sufficient exposure for an educated judgement. The Atheists that I know that have an understanding of the real issues involved often have a deep respect for many things about Christianity even if they don’t have the heart for it themselves. Jesus and Paul were pretty plain in explaining that not everyone would believe, and that even if some saw a man rise from the dead, they would not change.

A lack of faith, and by faith I mean an understanding of things the way they really are, is often more of a moral problem than it is a problem of knowledge. Refusing to know is different from not having been told. I do a lot of work in a field sometimes called for lack of a better term “apologetics” (http://www.apologetics.com) and in that field explaining the weakness of atheistic arguments and the sufficiency of theistic claims is part and parcel the discipline, but it is always good to remember that once all the cards are on the table, whether or not the case has been made is not the ultimate test. It is a war of psychologies here more than a matter of data, and a battle of worldviews more than the scramble of evidences and counter evidences.

There are only two ultimate ways of looking at who and what we are: as personal beings who interpret all things through the light of love for God and love for our neighbor, and as accidental skirmishes of atoms in the void bereft of meaning and determined to an inevitably vapid non-existence. People decide, in the final analysis, what they want to think that they are, and tend to tow the line once they embrace self definition. For some it is a process of an ascent into truth through time, and for some a descent into a strange kind dark in which one decides that one is really nothing at all. Just a mistake of the universe soon to regain its previous silence.

Neiswonger

I joined Mensa a while ago and am having a hard time listening to the people there. Almost all of the people I met there are belligerent atheists and they enjoy making fun of religious people in general and Christians in particular. They regard us as stupid.

You are right. There is indeed a whole spiritual dimension that they are not aware of. I am going to focus on my words and conduct rather than obsessing over theirs.

Thanks!

I think we are on the same page, I really do. Just maybe emphasizing different aspects.

I really do long for Christians to be knowledgeable, involved, and concerned for the political realm. But can I expect that every person be excited about and ‘involved’ in sports or medicine? I think we would say no, though, when we get the opportunity to be salt and light in those areas (even just a few moments in those areas), we would take that opportunity. So why expect such high involvement in politics? Can we expect every Christian to be involved in every area? Or maybe politics takes precedence over other areas, since it deals with the general good of a whole society. Something for me/us to think about.

Of course, it is a blessing to have national laws formed after the purposes of God (I would vote for hanging Matthew 5 in courthouses rather than Exodus 20). But, in the end, though not trying to be pessimistic, I do not believe every politician will be a follower of Christ and want godly laws. There are a lot of politicians. So, the few or many that are working in politics are to be salt and light. And as makarios stated earlier, it seems that when there are evil governments, God really likes to move (book of Acts, present day China). I don’t advocate that we vote for an evil government or laws, but I know that in this present age there will be such. So, we should look to keep proclaiming the kingdom and redemption in Christ, being salt and light, and keep that as our main agenda. If we are working in politics, or any other realm of life, that is our ultimate mission, all the while standing for righteousness as He gives opportunity.

Thank for the interaction.

I think you might be confusing being involved in ‘politics’ which is the concern of the community for the common good, with being a ‘politician’, which is a profession. Every person, not just every Christian but every person is called to the first; few are called to the second.

To say that the Christian should not be interested in politics is to say that they should not be interested in the good of the community, and I don’t think you would say that. Still, everything from the way politics is done to the ways of doing things that the political process decides is the domain of the political, so all of this is central to Christian practice.

Whether people believe or not is a matter of personal faith; whether or people live or die, or suffer, are tortured or fed, or censured or praised by the community is political, and so we care about these things if we take people seriously.

But you see, when you get into things like Christians running the government or not running the government, at once I think, contrary to your intent, of course Christians should be running the government. Why would any Christian think that it would be best for people that are not Christians to be running the government? It seems at least counter-intuitive to think that there are actually Christians out there that are aiming for an antiChristian government. It doesn’t even make sense for a Christian to prefer antiChristianity.

But then you did say “take over” the government, and I don’t know what that means. I think that Christians, like everyone else, should vote their conscience based upon what they think is right and what they think is true. Because I live in a democracy, that is the way we do things, and if anyone can get enough votes, what they want will inevitably come to pass. Constitutions can be amended and laws can change, and that is the way that we do things here. So, in short, of course I want Christian government as opposed to pagan government, or antiChristian government. How could I say anything else?

As for “Christian politics”, I don’t think I know what you mean by that unless you mean corporately forming laws that are the expression of love for God and love for my neighbor. If that is Christian politics then I want it. Laws that hate God and hate my neighbor? I don’t want that politics, whatever it’s called.

Really, I don’t think you want evil laws. You’re just messing with me. Given the opportunity you would vote for good laws. Any sensible person would I think. The problem is that we have different ideas about what good laws would be, and so we have a political process to shape it out. Now there are a lot of political processes. I think some are better than others. But I think that some are better than others because I have a way of thinking that is informed by the teachings of Jesus. So for me, a harsh oppressive dictatorship is bad and representative constitutional democracy is good.

Are you saying that I should not try to affirm what I think is a good in the form of government itself? Everyone else should but I should not? I don’t think I could do that. I need to vote against forms of governance that cause harm and suffering to people if for no other reason than that I have a demand upon me that I love my neighbor as my self. For goodness sake I even have a demand upon me to love my enemy! Christian ethics is no easy road. But all of this is simply to say that if I do not want a Christian government, or at least Christians to lead in government, I want less good for my neighbor than they might otherwise get, and I don’t see how that can be the Christian choice to make.

All the best,

Neiswonger

But we also have to be careful not to confuse someone’s personal calling into these different areas of life with the Church’s call as a whole. Individual Christians are called into politics, just as individual Christians are called into sports. And as individuals (though making up the whole), we are to be salt and light and live our lives in accordance with the laws of the land (Romans 13). This will influence the ‘political realm’. But, and I don’t think you are necessarily saying this, should we not be careful of seeing the Church’s main duty as taking over and running the government? Being salt and light – Yes. Running it – No. The main mission of the body of Christ is to proclaim the message of the kingdom rule of God and redemption in Christ (though maybe in less ‘religious’ sounding phrases). Christ’s main mission was proclaiming the kingdom (Luke 4:43). Yes, He also was salt and light, influencing the areas of life including politics. But His main mission was simply proclaiming the kingdom. Not proclaiming ‘Christian politics’.

Yes, the Law of Moses was the law of the land in His day. But they were also still living, though very poorly, in a theocratic society (God’s laws were the law of the land). In the new covenant, God has no longer set any particular nation as His nation. He calls all people from all nations. He rules over one nation, but it is the royal priesthood of believers scattered in every nation. Thus, we are called to be salt and light to our nations and cultures as we proclaim the kingdom, the main goal. But our main purpose, as a whole, is not to run the government. But I am also glad He calls certain individuals to work in the area of politics, just as He calls Christians to professional basketball.

It is similar to this. We can establish that we are to be salt and light in sports, law, medicine, etc. And specific followers of Christ sense the call of God to work in those areas. But to say that the Church is to go in and make sports ‘completely Christian’ or all artistic endeavors ‘completely Christian’ would be silly. We are called to interact with those non-believers in the areas of our world and culture. My wife wants to show the heart of God in photography, I want to show the heart of God in writing. We are both being salt and light into those areas. But our goal ultimately is to proclaim the kingdom, not make very part of culture nice and Christian. If we proclaim the kingdom and see people bow the knee to Jesus, I believe many things will begin to fall in line. But in all, we must see the kingdom proclaimed, all the while influencing life and culture.

I hope I did not veer off the path too much in this comment.

To immediately assume that the government power that Paul is referring to is Rome, even though he is writing to those in Rome, is a reach, since the only laws that Paul writes of in the entire work are the laws of Moses. Does it imply Rome also? Of course, but Rome in scripture is a minor footnote in a more important message. Even your basic interpretation and application assumes that He is speaking of more than just Rome, and Nero is not a Biblical style hero of godliness.

Even in Chapter 13 of Romans, when Paul gets around to stating what laws he is writing of, what laws he expects a state to enforce and what evils he expected them to punish, he writes this…

8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Quoting the Law of Moses. That Paul is somehow giving a blanket endorsement of any evil law or practice conceived by the Roman establishment and placing God’s seal of approval upon it seems incredibly foreign to the nature of the text. He is quite obviously saying that when they do good, they are a force for good, and that they were ordained by God, to do good. He could not possibly be saying that they have God’s seal of approval upon whatever horrific evil their fallen minds might intend simply because he ordained them to do good. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

But more to the point, we are not in Rome. It’s not as if we live in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Canada or something like that. Here at least, we are the state, are capable of setting policy, guiding legal formation, and responsible to God for Civil practice. Here, it is we that are they. And so I say again the duty remains.

All the best,

Neiswonger