Christians and their government

Artfuldodger said:

The businessman I was trying to think of was R.G. Letourneau.
This is what he said: Some people think I'm all mixed up---that you can't serve the Lord and business, too, but that's just the point. God needs businessmen as partners as well as preachers.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Our companies are as much a mission field as are the unreached tribal groups of the Amazon, Africa, Austrailia, etc.

I think a problem is that Christians tend to segregate the 'secular' with the 'spiritual', when all we are, where we are, and all we do can be understood as 'spiritual'.
Does not the Spirit of God go and be with us where ever we are? According to Psalm 139, even in the obsure places we call worldly our God is there. We literally have the Spirit to direct us in any situation and bring His life, wether we see it, or are willing, or not.
The age old saying is true: Preach Christ always, use words when necessary.

Picked this up on Wiki today and though it might fit in this tread re: Puritans


"Core views

In the relation of churches to civil power, Puritans believed that secular governors are accountable to God to protect and reward virtue, including "true religion", and to punish wrongdoers. They opposed the supremacy of the monarch in the church (Erastianism), and argued that the only head of the Church in heaven or earth is Christ.

The idea of personal Biblical interpretation, while central to Puritan beliefs, was shared with Protestants in general. Puritans sought both individual and corporate conformity to the teaching of the Bible, with moral purity pursued both down to the smallest detail as well as ecclesiastical purity to the highest level. They believed that man existed for the glory of God; that his first concern in life was to do God's will and so to receive future happiness.[15]"

I cannot escape the very simple notion that many a redcoat died with the name of Jesus on his lips.
I had a lengthy post that went far afield and perhaps derailed this thread to some extent, so I deleted it.
Basically it described my own experiences in justifying rebellion.
"Who is my neighbor?" was once asked of Jesus.
I rarely live up to the love that lays down its life for every son of Adam, but even so, I cannot deny I see One who did.


To this I add Jesus instructions regarding the Temple Tax.
The usurpers who demand tribute from others...without recognizing the true "sons" are paid their taxes for this one reason..."nevertheless, so as not to offend..."

And yet, Alvin York (perhaps fictionally) put his life at risk for authority (refusing to kill), and killed for the the life of his neighbor. Thus I study the story relative to scripture.

hummerpoo said:

And yet, Alvin York (perhaps fictionally) put his life at risk for authority (refusing to kill), and killed for the the life of his neighbor. Thus I study the story relative to scripture.

Click to expand...

Did you ever research if this movie was in part propaganda?

gordon 2 said:

Did you ever research if this movie was in part propaganda?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's been a while and my memory is foggy. There was some question, but I think it was the other way. I think the concern of the producers was that the movie would be seen as pro-war in the climate of isolationism that prevailed prior to U.S. involvement in WWII. I do recall that an effort had been made to get York to approve the making of a movie from shortly after WWI, which he had rejected because he did not want to see his actions glorified. He, and the others depicted, extracted many guarantees concerning the production before the signed off on it.

Indeed: redcoat, minuteman, Yankee, confederate. Praying to our same Christ, sacrificing their lives, for neighbor, for their Lord. And how did the Body of Christ reconcile the irreconcilable call to arms by these warring governments? Despite the potential for advantage of perspective based on history, I can't reconcile Paul's discussion against this backdrop. If the current war of words over political and sociology-economic rights results in our government repeating history, or results in some new violent domestic chapter, I don't have a good answer to Ronnie's ominous OP. Have you come to terms with what Paul said?

I occasionally hear someone include the following in a public prayer:

"Father, be with our service men and women who are fighting overseas so that we can continue to worship you freely and without fear of harm".

Frankly, that doesn't sit well with me. Based on history, I'm thinking that many prayers like that could give God the notion of letting us know what it's like to worship in fear!

Know what I mean?

BT Charlie said:

Indeed: redcoat, minuteman, Yankee, confederate. Praying to our same Christ, sacrificing their lives, for neighbor, for their Lord. And how did the Body of Christ reconcile the irreconcilable call to arms by these warring governments? Despite the potential for advantage of perspective based on history, I can't reconcile Paul's discussion against this backdrop. If the current war of words over political and sociology-economic rights results in our government repeating history, or results in some new violent domestic chapter, I don't have a good answer to Ronnie's ominous OP. Have you come to terms with what Paul said?

Click to expand...

The last two posts are a firestorm.
Admittedly...some of those who took up arms needed little in the way of outward incentive...that is...this whole notion of God and country (read "my" way of life) has become so ingrained as a sacred nostrum one can get easily scorched by messing with it.
Makes you consider Jesus many instructions as he preached to and amongst a people enjoying the company of a brutal occupying force.
Some might even say he sounded as though he saw past all the impotence of worldly power and authority to accomplish anything.

BT Charlie said:

Indeed: redcoat, minuteman, Yankee, confederate. Praying to our same Christ, sacrificing their lives, for neighbor, for their Lord. And how did the Body of Christ reconcile the irreconcilable call to arms by these warring governments? Despite the potential for advantage of perspective based on history, I can't reconcile Paul's discussion against this backdrop. If the current war of words over political and sociology-economic rights results in our government repeating history, or results in some new violent domestic chapter, I don't have a good answer to Ronnie's ominous OP. Have you come to terms with what Paul said?

Click to expand...

"political and sociology-economic rights"

Is this an idol worshiped?

hummerpoo said:

"political and sociology-economic rights"

Is this an idol worshiped?

Click to expand...

OK..."Let's skin that smokewagon and see what happens..."
(Of all places in which that line may need no attribution, it may be here)

An idol worshiped?... is asked.
I agree...let's drag it into the light and see what comes out.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori..." ?

Really?
Do any imagine Paul, a Roman citizen, saw any glory in dying for that country? (I only use Paul because for the most part we rarely need to be re-convinced of his godliness.)

But when Rome saw it's very foundations shaken by those who were delivered from fearing to not acknowledge it's preeminence in all things, Rome submitted adoption papers.
If you can't beat 'em, corrupt 'em. Pollute 'em. Dilute 'em.
In Hoc Signo Vinces...may be all too easily misunderstood... and not only by Constantine.

Perhaps the noted prophet Bobbo Dylanus spoke to this in his letters to the Utopians..."With God on Our Side".

There is nothing of which a man is more convinced than the purity of his affections, and the motives that sneak along under the covers.
Loving something always makes it 'alright'

Jesus strips away the party masks.

No man can do a thing to give meaning to his own life...matters not how sublime one imagines their devotions and efforts.

Yes, Jesus is a robber.
First he steals all our sin that masquerades as righteousness.

Hummerpoo, yes I think political issues can indeed be idols worshipped. But one person's obsession destroying primal relationship with God could be another's cross.

I got thrown off the smoke wagon and skinned up, as I am not smart enough to understand what Israel says sometimes. I did eat at a cafe today and heard a Bob Dylan song, but no lightbulb came on for me. I agree we all suck and fall short, and am grateful for Christ's mercy and grace.

BT Charlie said:

Hummerpoo, yes I think political issues can indeed be idols worshipped. But one person's obsession destroying primal relationship with God could be another's cross.

I got thrown off the smoke wagon and skinned up, as I am not smart enough to understand what Israel says sometimes. I did eat at a cafe today and heard a Bob Dylan song, but no lightbulb came on for me. I agree we all suck and fall short, and am grateful for Christ's mercy and grace.

Click to expand...

"I got thrown off the smoke wagon and skinned up" Now, I don't care who you are, that's funny.

It took me some work to get all that Israel had to say but it was worth the effort. I consider it a work of inspired art.

Do I understand you correctly; a simple elementary relationship with God which eliminates the worlds distractions could be a burden? If so, then I would agree that the, for lack of a better term, process (a path that I have at best only found and not followed) is, in the flesh, not always comfortable. However, in the Spirit such is more than possible, it may be unavoidable. When Jesus said "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me." (Lk. 9:23) is that not what He was saying? To take up your cross is to be die to self and live for Him. Can one not think of what He has done, and is doing? He next says "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it".

Amen. I was thinking about political or other issues. Take the Treyvon Martin shooting. His parents spoke out, motivated by grief and their sincere belief that on going injustice was occurring. That is in my mind their heavy cross.

Then others come on the scene. I confess having doubts about their motivations. Some have been around for generations, inciting, carping and always raising cash for seemingly fungible atrocities. Injustice for some attracted to this celebrity circus might be idolatry, especially if their livelihood depends on the very existence of injustice and its perpetuation, not termination.

Remember the Duke lacrosse team scandal? The government official behind that, a licensed attorney and elected official sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of his state and nation, violated those same constitutions and laws. He trumped up charges by misrepresenting that a victim existed and what she claimed to have occurred. Does coming to grips with Paul's writing in Romans
mean we have a duty to obey this corrupt official? Who has authority to declare what is corrupt, and which official should or should not be obeyed? Have soldiers not always had the duty to discern an unlawful command and refuse to obey, despite charges of treason or mutiny and the lesser included offenses?

Now let your imagination flow a bit. The New Black Panthers put a bounty on the Martin shooter and call for blood to flow in the streets. Neo-Nazis, always helpful in times of stress, let it be known that they will punish terrorism with terrorism.

Where is our president, who publicly entered and influenced this local event? Where is his attorney general? We are to obey, but will they seek to impose laws that are corrupt or just, and who gets to make that call at the plate?

Our congress appears broken. It is a mirror of national brokenness.

Given extreme, deeply fractured divisions politically and economically, are we really that far from being called on to deal with the OP in very fundamental way?

A Yankee who served his Christ, laying down his life for brother and neighbor, in
obedience to government anointed by God. A confederate who likewise sacrificed his life for his Christ, brother and neighbor, in obedience to his government, anointed by God. No, I can't say how I would choose put into the same conflict.

I feel at times like Charlton Heston's character in the Planet of the Apes, when he is caged and abused like an animal by his ape captors: "It's a madhouse!"

I am reminded of a lady, in her late 70's at the time, who was one of the most Godly people I have ever known. One morning about 4:00 AM, as we ate the breakfast she had insisted on preparing for us before we went turkey hunting, her husband and I were discussing such issues as you bring up and expressing similar thoughts. In a manor that brought our conversation to a halt, she said, "Boy's, you seem to be forgetting that God is in control". Some 20 years later, Jean's reprimand is still with me.

Men have been trying to solve the worlds problems in man's way since they left the garden. Perhaps, just perhaps, if some (a remnant) were to try God's way, we would find that it fit into His plan. I think that is what Jean was telling Homer and me.

That is very encouraging. Many thanks.

BT, I see by your understanding I didn't lose you in the tall grass at all. Actually, you show my words were pretty well unnecessary.(something I discover to my oft chagrin is more the case lately)

It's not mine to judge how far a man allowed himself pushed before he pushed back. What men have "done" (past tense) stands to their own account, Minuteman or Tory, Union man or Johnny Reb. My question always remains this, and first to myself, though I may not stand as nakedly in the light as I imagine: Though we may put the name of God on something, (and always and especially, even if "I" like the result), does that make it Godly...and more to the point, am I expected amongst my brothers who may accept it so, to endorse it?"

I am among the richest men of all the world. Overweight, two (running) vehicles, living in a comfort controlled house. I would be a fool to say I despise the benefits that have accrued from living in this nation...(simply watch me when the A/C goes out)...I sure don't look like a man who rejects his own comfort.

I am perhaps alone in this...but I suspect not; that is, that I pick through what I have seen of Christ and struggle in battles of the heart that often appear this way "Is that the Lord speaking...or merely your last satisfying meal?" Do I truly follow the one who forsook all for the sake of his Father's will, and for immeasurable benefit to others, or do I simply mouth platitudes that include the name of Jesus as a sort of imprimatur upon my vacant ramblings?

Your questions above are salient. Do you know it was forbidden for the high priest to rend his garment? Jesus stands condemned before men "sworn" to uphold the law of God, and who, using that very law (and manipulation of his words) as a means to condemn him, they blatantly break the very law they now stand upon to hand him over to the unbelievers for execution.

Do any of us really imagine Pilate was entirely unaware and unfamiliar with the motives that provoked such? Do we believe Pilate couldn't see through the means employed by powerful men to maintain their estate? But he had his own test for knowing such...when confronted with the man in whom he found no guilt.
Do I stand? Or simply grease the wheels?
We know what he chose.

It is not wise in this present world to uncover the same machinations in others that you see so plainly, because you know them to be in yourself...for who then escapes judgment?
But we are not called as such. At least to my mind.

If I would be clear of the blood of all men, I cannot help but confess my own blood guilt. Yet my faith tells me this is not a fruitless exercise, as contrary as it is to the ways of this present world. Grace is given to the chiefest of sinners, I dare not consider for myself where "runners up" appear.

Bob Dylan eventually (and famously) came to a place where his words as bystander were tried. Yes...we all claim God is on our side as a justification for the most horrendous and obvious abrogations of the very words of the one in whose name we justify such excursions. But what will "I" do with this man called Christ? Will I be satisfied to shout to the crowd..."what will you have me do..."...or will I, unable to slip the very bond with which he draws me to him shout back to the crowd..."he's the only one here in whom I find no guilt" and be willing to bear standing with him in the very obvious consequence such words will produce from both Rome and Jerusalem?
"if you love him, go with him, then...both of you...up the hill to Golgotha!"

Is it any wonder we are told to pray we may be able to stand before the son of man at his appearing? (By that very man)
His presence exposes all of our own motives, all of our own delight in power over truth, all of our failure to uphold the very things upon which we stand as righteousness before others.

Mercy gives us strength, and faith in that mercy allows us, like children to proclaim "the emperor has no clothes on"...even though I be found equally naked. But I see one clothed with righteousness as the sun...

And so the question is wisely asked by Isaiah:
"Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

It is in my "seeking" to be justified I have found a root that went far deeper than ever I imagined.

I am the man. I am the coward that loves his own life.

Israel, that is beautiful man. Thanks.