In various circles in which I’ve traveled, people hold to a tacit and sometimes explicit belief that the American way is God’s way. It almost seems as if they believe that America is God’s new chosen people.
We find in Acts 4:32 (NAS) that " … the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them."
While I would be among the first to dispute the claim that this verse suggests “Christian Communism”, this is certainly not an absolutist laisse-faire (sp? spell-checker suggest Lassie (HA!)) system. (Of course, neither is Americanism or Capitalism.) Ideally, Christians take care of one another (and others too, when opportunity knocks.)
1 Samuel 8, the Israelites wanted a king and in verse 7, God says (NAS) “… Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but have rejected me …”.
At minimum, we can derive that a monarchy is not God’s ideal way nor is the American form of Government.
SO, can the American Christian point of view be defended? (I note that my limited contact with Christians of other cultures suggests to me that they do not suffer the same forms of myopia.) If not, what should the Christian’s response to government be? Withdrawal (ala Amish)? Active involvement?
Secondly, while we may agree that at various levels that the social programs are not successful, shouldn’t Christians be at the forefront of social change (ala John Weseley)? In other words, if welfare doesn’t work, should Christians propose something that does?
Wow, Tinker. The thread title references Fundies. The original post implies a monolithic “American Christian point of view.”
So, find new circles to travel in. :rolleyes:
Many of us are. See “Liberal Religions” thread. And a fair number of Vangies are doing likewise, as their lights lead them.
You know, if I hadn’t seen some much more sane posts from you before this, I’d be yelling “Troll” right now. And I don’t do that often at all.
I’d welcome your rephrasing the original post to avoid the logical fallacies I’ve identified. Then I for one will be happy to answer. I suspect Esprix, Jodih, Tomndebb, Melin, and a few others will have something to say, along with Navigator, Pariah, and Lauralee (though she may have to wait until Mullinator reads the thread). But I won’t set up a straw man and then shoot him down. Make your point with some reference to reality and then let’s debate it.
I am uncomfortable at assuming that the Bible includes detailed instructions for a form of government, especially with respect to the quotes provided above. With similar reasoning, I could contend that Christ’s example with the adultress was to teach us that we cannot administer justice ourselves, because none are without sin and may safely “cast the first stone.” Yet a system of justice would seem to require temporal punishment of some kind. Presumably that parable teaches merely that we should temper justice with mercy.
By similar reasoning, I don’t agree that the Bible mandates a Marxist or socialist form of government, or condemns capitalism.
That said, if the question is, “Should Christians propose improvements or refinements to our current system to address inequities therein?” then my answer is yes, that we should. As should Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists.
Not the atheists, though. Can’t trust them. [/tongue-in-cheek]
My thought is that American Christians need to define what secular ethic they espouse. Everything comes as obvious conclusions from that, once it’s defined.
E.g., there is a religious ethic for us Christians, as individuals, to feed the hungry, succor the poor, etc. (Cf. Parable of Sheep and Goats)
However, we are divided skatey-eight ways on the question of whether that ethic calls on us to compel our fellow man, who may not share our motivation, to pay taxes for the purpose of doing the above.
So we need a community secular ethic, a set of commonly held grounds for decision-making.
As for form of government, Thomas Jefferson said it best. But he didn’t follow his own guidelines. And many a person who bemoans “big meddling government” is the first to say “There oughta be a law” when his own ox is gored. (Not you, Lib, though I’d be very interested to see if you can hold true to your principles if given real power, remembering Lord Acton’s dictum.)
I thought the NT stated pretty clearly that lending money at interest was wrong - but that is the basis of the entire world economy. Pretty much everyone who has a bank account is in violation of this basic precept. Like everyone else, Christians have to live in the world that is. Like everyone else, they have to decide (fairly independently) what kind of world they want to help make. Calvinism is considered by many to be the direct cause of the said economy - the ethic of working hard, living frugally, saving your money and buying the rug out from everyone else is what this country is founded on
Cooper - I know I’ve seen that verse, but I haven’t been able to find that puppy in years! If you’ve got a cite, please share.
As I’ve indicated in other threads recently, I really don’t believe the Scriptures give us much of an idea of what sort of system of government Christians should espouse. Scripture says a great deal, for its time, but the judgment call of which paths to continue is up to us.
For instance, possibly the first labor law ever is included in the Ten Commandments. (I refer to the commandment about the Sabbath.) It says that, on one day out of seven, nobody shall work: not you or your family, none of your servants or slaves, not even foreigners with different beliefs. Hell, not even animals.
For its time, that was pretty radical. But the question of whether Christians should be satisfied with that, or seek the enactment of labor laws as radical and thoroughgoing for our time as the Fifth Commandment was for the time of Moses, or somewhere in between - that’s an open question, IMO. I know which way I lean, but I’d feel like I was misusing the name of the Lord if I were to claim that God was behind my interpretation.
Pariah, I welcome the inclusion of scripture into the debate.
Polycarp has it right (thanks for taking another look). I guess what I’m looking for is how does the Judeo-Christian ethic translate into secular activities including input into governmental affairs.
Manhattan’s reference to Calvinism is apropos in that I believe that some would suggest that if you’re poor, its your fault. (I would disagree.) But, I am looking for a more general discourse rather nit-picking a particular point of view (contrary to perceptions my OP might of suggested. )
Although if a nit pick brings us close to a Christian secular ethic.
I guess I should proof read three times before I post.
The above should say that I feel its apropossince that particular points of view allows one to ignore the “widows and the fatherless”.
And for a complete sentence … how about “Although if a nit brings us closer to a Christian secular ethic (and is posted for that reason), it, too, is welcome.”
I’m still one of those whosay that there is no such thing as the “Judeo-Christian” ethic. Judaism (in re ethics) is based primarily on justice; Christianity (in re ethics) is based primarily on faith, or on faith in Christ’s mercy. The two are not really reconciled easily.
Christian government? Well, I could wish that George W. would be more “in the world but not of it” and remember the bit about rich men going through the eye of a camel’s needle while keeping kosher–jeez, it’s late!
I’m with Bucky there, Tinker. There does not appear to be such a thing as Judeo-Christian.
Judaism is not Judeo-Christian; it is Judaism. Christianity is not Judeo-Christian; it is Christian (and some might point out that it has a lot of hellenistic philosophy added to it over the years, but that’s a different discussion).
Now I see your two questions boiling down, in reality to:
(1 and only 1) What type of government should those of Faith support?
Well, that really depends on the Faith, now doesn’t it? Some Christians hold that the New Testament tells them to not even be concerned with the secular governemnt. Some Jews consider they have an obligation to agitate with the government so it acts in an ethical manner. Some Muslims feel that there is only one lawful government, that described in the Koran.
You should be able to readily see that these concerns may not go hand-in-hand.
Doubtful. There is no reason Paine wouldn’t take credit for it himself. True, Jefferson was well influenced by Paine (as were many other early American thinkers) but thats hardly the same thing. Also, the only real Illuminati was some Bavarian thing in the 18th century, wasn’t it? The book is fiction…
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that Ian Taylor’s claims are little more than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, too.
What is significant is that, according to that paragraph I quoted, non-American Christian Fundamentalists do not consider the U.S. to have been “founded on Christian principles”, like most American fundamentalists do. This goes a long way toward discrediting the notion that our Founding Fathers[TM] intended the U.S. to be an unfalteringly Christian nation.
Christ said that he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. As such Christians generally hold that laws in the OT (HEY CHAIM - is a preferrable term “Jewish Bible”?), that are specified for purposes of ritual cleanliness are no longer applicable - Christians are ritually pure because of Christ’s sacrifice. Moral laws are not passe. As such, one cannot really claim a justice vs. mercy dichotomy.
Micah 6:8 (NIV) says
Certainly there is the expectation that ideally justice and mercy should be perfectly blended (nobody said it would be easy.)
As such, the principal division between “Judeo-” and “christian”, is Christ. The secular actions of Jews and Christians should be the same. There can be a judeo-christian ethic.
WRT the OT vs NT in Monty’s quote, see a couple of paragraphs up.
WRT to the question as to other religions, (e.g., Islam), certainly they would have a different perspective. BUT, the question of OP is about Judeo-Christian secular activity.
Tracer: I agree that the “Christian” nature of our founding fathers is greatly exagerated (though the influence of Christianity on their world view is undeniable - can’t see “pursuit of happiness” coming from the Budhist denial of self.) Nevertheless, the question is how do Christians interact with Government?
Tinker, I think we may have a disagreement on a religious question here:
As I see it, Paul’s claim that we are “free from the Law” and Jesus’ statement which you quoted are not contradictory. The Law which binds all of us is in Jesus’ statement of the Great Commandment and the Second which is like unto it. They serve as a sort of religious Constitutional law, and all other laws in the Torah are applicable only as they match with it. Sort of a justice vs. letter of the law decision: if something in Leviticus serves to further love of God and fellow man in that situation, it is applicable; if not, it’s invalid, whether it refers to Jewish ritual or to “moral behavior.” I believe this is valid by examining how Jesus applied and “violated” the Torah Law in his own earthly career. YMMV, of course.
I don’t believe that my paragraph that you quoted disagrees with what you said. Though your response indicates I need to expound a bit on what I meant.
God requires purity in his presense. According to Hebrews 11, the patriarchs, et al, were purified, not so much by their sacrifices, but by faith in God’s promises. The sacrifices served as an external witness to that faith. The law, according to Romans, is a schoolmaster teaching us that we cannot hope to achive the required purity. Christ’s sacrifice makes one pure, and ritual and purification laws are no longer necessary. In that sense, Christ fulfilled the law, that is, there is no longer need for faith in some redeeming future event, as it has occurred.
As you put it, moral law is subsumed in the “religious Constitutional law.” Those two commandments “sum up the whole of the law.”
What Jesus accomplished was the elevation of the law from legalism (letter of the law) to the principle WRT moral law.
I think the verse Micah 6:8 quoted above corresponds nicely with what you said.
[/tongue-in-cheek]
)