# Christian Political Participation



## KMK (May 1, 2017)

I put this in the Theological Forum to prevent it from becoming too topical.

Andrew Fuller, in his book "The Backslider", 1801, pg 45, says...

"By standing aloof from all parties as such, and approving themselves the friends of government and good order, by whomsoever administered, christians would acquire a dignity of character worthy of their profession, would be respected by all, and possess greater opportunities of doing good: while by a contrary conduct they render one part of the community their enemies, and the other, I fear, derive but little spiritual advantage from being their friends."

The context in his day was Napoleon and the French Revolution, but it rings true for modern America.

Or, does it ring true for me because I am a classic introvert and eschew all kinds of conflict?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 2, 2017)

Chalk me up as co-appreciative.


----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

KMK said:


> I put this in the Theological Forum to prevent it from becoming too topical.
> 
> Andrew Fuller, in his book "The Backslider", 1801, pg 45, says...
> 
> ...


I would tend to see it as being a good citizen, we can and should get involved in situations in this nation of a political cause, such as abortion, gay rights, religious freedoms etc!

The slavery machine in England was busted mainly due to Christians becoming active and involved in getting that legislated out, and same type of process happened here during Civil war days!


----------



## Jack K (May 2, 2017)

It is regretful that those with evangelical faith have come to be seen as a voting bloc. This has indeed contributed to making one part of the community see believers as their enemies. It is hard to engage them with the gospel when they've already decided, based on politics of all things, that we are evil people.


----------



## KMK (May 2, 2017)

If this is so, then Fuller's caution is a good one. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (May 2, 2017)

Standing aloof when there is a moral duty to act would not be considered "good" except where the ethical theory is decisively pacifist. Is it possible to discover whether Fuller was a pacifist?

Bi-partisan support for matters which concern government and order in general is built into the two-party system. It should not require one to stand aloof unless both parties have begun to act against government and order and are making bi-partisan support impossible. In that case there is the option of political dissent.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 2, 2017)

'Woe to those who are enacting wrongful statutes,
and to the writers who write trouble,
designed to turn the poor from their rights,
and to despoil of justice the downtrodden of my people;
aiming that widows should be their spoil,
and to loot orphans ...' (Isaiah 10)

I struggle with this. We are supposed to care very much about social justice; and we're supposed to form our ideas of what it is based on an unbiased application of God's word -- which is going to bring us into some sort of conflict with opposing standards. It's about bearing witness though, and loving our least neighbor, not 'winning': politics is staged in competition; and that muddies things so much. 

Lately I think it's better to oppose or encourage specific legislation and actions than to 'take sides'; and to be slow to believe anything. Orwell said that he realised when he was still young that he had never encountered an accurately reported news story about any event with which he was associated, and that major events were reported in England as taking place when/where he was in Spain that he knew never happened. Our political witness bearing should be about eternal truth, but lies are a vital part of this-worldly power struggle. Unbelievers with values are as vulnerable as evangelicals. It's a pitfall of having values that it makes us more vulnerable to the ruthless. (But the world would hardly be better off if people lost their values!)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (May 3, 2017)

a mere housewife said:


> 'Woe to those who are enacting wrongful statutes,
> and to the writers who write trouble,
> designed to turn the poor from their rights,
> and to despoil of justice the downtrodden of my people;
> ...


Sounds like today. The last two weeks I was aloof due to a lot of work. So far as I know the world and my country are still around....


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2017)

a mere housewife said:


> politics is staged in competition; and that muddies things so much.



Excellent point!


----------



## MW (May 3, 2017)

The work-place is a competitive market, and Christian men work in that market. He pays his taxes; he is therefore entitled to representation. This gives him a status in which he is able to do good. Should he not do good because he is a Christian?

Is there anything in this world that is not competitive? Even truth must compete in the market place of ideas. In the Psalms we discover that godliness strives and contends against the wickedness of men. The lifeblood of godliness is within, and it runs to God for grace and strength, but it does not run from the challenges of life.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## a mere housewife (May 3, 2017)

I was thinking not in the sense of avoiding the realities of struggle, but of conscious goals in interacting with our neighbor: love wants to serve another person's welfare, esteeming them better than ourselves: competition wants to best them, esteeming ourselves better. Even the effort to get a particular job should not be _focused_ on the competitive aspect (the goal is not to make someone else go jobless), but on the genuine good of doing something valuable for society in the work itself, providing for our family, etc. American politics tends to be focused on a competitive aspect in the whole way it's staged. More seriously -- if we're trying to think of interests beyond our own -- the party platforms make us pick and choose which neighbor's welfare we want to serve. 

I don't think we should disengage. It's just hard to know how to engage as a citizen of a world of love, in this sort of fundamentally competitive temporal process.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2017)

In serving another's welfare it might come to pass that we compete with the individual for their welfare. The individual does not always know what is good for him. It is a difficult area that calls for much wisdom.

We should not circumvent the victory of Christ. He is superior; supreme in fact. We are to be meek, humble, and quiet, but we are also to glory in the Lord.


----------



## Warren (May 3, 2017)

When a libertarian or disillusioned conservative tells you they don't participate in government, that is vote or run for office or enlist, what they are implicitly saying is they've deferred the power to do so on others.
__________________________
I question the victorious currents of liberal history and forward the idea man is not progressing but degenerating into less than animal, while technology is fast outpacing our development. One day, given this trajectory, technology will be more human than humans. If this arch is to bow in our favor again, Christians must decide liberal history is a total mythology, which means out with democracy, socialism, fascism, and anarchy.


----------



## Jack K (May 3, 2017)

When the political parties are behaving badly, without dignity or Christian decency, and with a greater desire to win than to see the truth win, then the church is especially wise to stay aloof from aligning with a particular party. This is not the same as withdrawing from government or ceasing to work for good through governmental means.


----------



## Warren (May 3, 2017)

Remaining aloof serves the exact same ends as capitulating to the loudest, prevailing opinion. There is no wisdom in it, as wisdom teaches when men are complicit in misrule, which the libertarian is, they are as guilty as the sinner.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 3, 2017)

What happens when the sincere Christian is _alienated _from the political process as a whole?

Or when his vote in favor of the "lesser of two evils" is simply advocacy of one form of (what appears to him) _*essential evil,*_ with insufficient righteous mitigation to salve his conscience that he did what little good he could?

To pooh-pooh such a man's choice of the eternal kingdom _to the exclusion of the worldly;_ which, admittedly with real and sorrowful reluctance, involves him necessarily turning his back wholly on the _illusions of choice _falsely presented him (as he is sincerely persuaded)--this is just bullying.

You will have to persuade such a man that his obligation continues; and not simply pick a "signal-ballot-issue" on which to fly the banner of holiness to which Christians are supposedly rallied. Everything else is negotiable--life, liberty, property--for this symbolic totem.

Isn't it possible that, so far as the elites and bureaucracy are concerned, nothing is _meant_ to change on this issue, for as long as possible, possibly as long as the political system exists? Because it is clearly the issue that supplies the smokescreen for the real game of grabbing the power and money?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MW (May 4, 2017)

These concerns are all covered by the right of political dissent, which still recognises magistracy as God's ordinance and the legitimate pursuit of what is good in this world. To the pure all things are pure.

God gives power. Men use it. It is not in the interests of the Christian witness to present the Lord Jesus Christ as a post-structuralist. He claims authority over the highest power. We confess He is Lord of all things. To that extent creation is redeemed for the use of the Christian.

Are we to tell men that Christ really has no power over this world? that to become a Christian a person must give up all legitimate rights to life and property? This is not what Christ has sent men to preach in His name. When Paul almost persuaded king Agrippa to become a Christian he said nothing about the king giving up his place of power.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 4, 2017)

I love the points you make, Matthew. Invariably, I do.

I think we are at the place where dissent must be registered. But that opinion is not yet shared by many of my religious tribe, a significant number of whom have put surprising (wild?) confidence in a new Most Christian Prince who, not so long ago they were deeply skeptical over. Not only am I not persuaded, of late I have been definitely pushed in the direction of a more negative assessment.

So, I am sure that Jesus is Lord; and thankful. We should pray there may be those ministers who will preach to Agrippas today made willing to listen to them by the Holy Spirit. And we should recognize that above the law (of men) today are our very own Caligulas and Neros and Senators. Nothing less.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Warren (May 4, 2017)

Lord Acton was wrong; power isn't the corrupter, weakness is. With no power comes great irresponsibility. Instead, pursue a One-Thousand Statesman approach and an Article V restructure of the US Constitution.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 4, 2017)

MW said:


> In serving another's welfare it might come to pass that we compete with the individual for their welfare. The individual does not always know what is good for him.



It would be much easier if it were that sort of competition. What usually happens is something like this:

Candidate A supports torturing detainees (note also that we detain people without due process).
Candidate A is the pro-life candidate.

At this point I have to choose between loving my unborn neighbor and my detained neighbor. I'm urged to make this choice because it's the only way to wield my share of earthly power, and the people who pick it up if I drop it will not care about my neighbors the way I do.

I praise God for people who are less paralysed over their actions. I highly value others who act consistently with their day to day salt-of-the-earth engagement in the world, seeking the best outcome in areas where they are better informed than I am. Ultimately we are none of us very well informed about potential impacts of policies, or even about policies themselves, in areas beyond our own callings.

But if I could make that choice, I would not identify the gospel with it.

Politics is always a kick in the gut sort of reminder that all the relationships in the garden were broken and we were thrown out of Eden and a flaming sword is there to keep us from getting back. It reminds me that the kingdom is going to be a miraculous gift from God, not the natural outcome of any human effort. It never seems to present a 'good for all' choice (1 Thes. 5:15), but only a way to diminish some particular evils, a negotiation where some particular 'good' is offered in exchange for power itself. I am not personally well enough informed, especially not when the media is informing me, to often know how to begin making this kind of assessment.

Having lived in a couple Latin American countries I'm also very aware that our country is safe for this democratic process because we interfere sometimes to the terrible detriment of innocent folks -- housewives like myself -- in the democratic processes of other nations. We have done as much of this under one party as another. The exercise of power in this world is necessarily, bitterly ugly. That doesn't mean I think it right to walk away or advise others to do so. But I can't personally be brought to act by pretending that power in this fallen world is some sort of ethical end it itself. It's a bitterly ugly exercise, that somewhere exacts its cost in shattering innocent lives.

I pray all the more for our elected officials and those serving. May God give them wisdom. I expect prayer is more powerful than voting, even.

[edited to add: I hope this does not sound hostile. I sometimes feel just sick trying to figure out how to engage these realities as a Christian.]

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (May 4, 2017)

I am perfectly willing to vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils, or if I were in government to align myself with the lesser of two evils. But it seems unwise to take the name of Christ and align it with the lesser of two evils. The name of Christ should be aligned with the gospel, and I have yet to run across a political party in my neighborhood that has the gospel as its platform or its method of operation.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## KMK (May 4, 2017)

MW said:


> Standing aloof when there is a moral duty to act would not be considered "good" except where the ethical theory is decisively pacifist. Is it possible to discover whether Fuller was a pacifist?



From Michael Haykin's Biographical Sketch to this book:

"In 1801, England was locked in what amounted to a world war with France. Napoleon was seeking to bring all of Europe under French domination. In 1801, England was all but alone in standing against the tyrant. Not surprisingly politics and the strategems of war dominated the hearts and minds of many, including Christians. Fuller was not slow to recognize the way in which these concerns were infringing upon the sovereign claims of King Jesus...Fuller was not a political quietest but he could see from the lives of some in his day that immersion in politics could be a major hindrance to the work of the Gospel."

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Warren (May 4, 2017)

Work in the Gospel always has major hindrances, and its not surprising that the values of a liberal democracy run countercurrent with Christian values, when you consider many democrats and Hegelian revolutionaries have praised Gnostics and atheists as "Enlightened" men.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2017)

KMK said:


> From Michael Haykin's Biographical Sketch to this book:
> 
> "In 1801, England was locked in what amounted to a world war with France. Napoleon was seeking to bring all of Europe under French domination. In 1801, England was all but alone in standing against the tyrant. Not surprisingly politics and the strategems of war dominated the hearts and minds of many, including Christians. Fuller was not slow to recognize the way in which these concerns were infringing upon the sovereign claims of King Jesus...Fuller was not a political quietest but he could see from the lives of some in his day that immersion in politics could be a major hindrance to the work of the Gospel."



That is very helpful. Thankyou, Pastor Klein.

I would need to hear the reasons why political engagement is seen to be detrimental to the gospel before I could give a proper response. The reality is that the work of the gospel is protected by law in countries which have emerged from the British establishment and its Christian roots.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2017)

a mere housewife said:


> But if I could make that choice, I would not identify the gospel with it.



In the traditional two kingdom view of Presbyterianism the gospel and the church are immediately established by Jesus Christ, which preserves their spirituality and independence. The gospel itself is free from all political influence. As Christians, however, we continue to live in this world and to be citizens of our countries, with a responsibility to seek the good of our neighbour.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Warren (May 4, 2017)

http://thefutureprimaeval.net/you-m...n-politics-but-politics-is-interested-in-you/


----------



## Edward (May 4, 2017)

KMK said:


> From Michael Haykin's Biographical Sketch to this book:
> 
> "In 1801, England was locked in what amounted to a world war with France. Napoleon was seeking to bring all of Europe under French domination. In 1801, England was all but alone in standing against the tyrant.



Taken alone, that's not really an accurate representation of what was going on in 1801. That year marked a winding down of the War of the Second Coalition (which was pretty much the inverse of what is represented). This War is sometimes lumped in with the War of the First Coalition as part of the Wars of the French Revolution). 

In 1798, France stood virtually alone against a coalition of Britain, Austria and Russia . While not part of the Coalition, the Americans were battling the French on the high seas during this period. And the Turks joined in 1799 against France. 

The Russian army was soundly defeated in Switzerland, and the Austrians were knocked out of the war in 1801, but the Turks joined with the British in taking Egypt from the French in that same year. After the Egyptian campaign ended at the end of August, 1801, there wasn't much in the way of land battles until the French - British treaty of 1802, with the Brits holding a dominant hand at sea.


----------



## Herald (May 4, 2017)

Jack K said:


> It is regretful that those with evangelical faith have come to be seen as a voting bloc. This has indeed contributed to making one part of the community see believers as their enemies. It is hard to engage them with the gospel when they've already decided, based on politics of all things, that we are evil people.



Jack,

You're more right than you know.

I resigned as a member of a certain political party last summer. I'm now now officially "unaffiliated" (independent). I can still vote (or not) according to my conscience, but I'm no longer encumbered with a party membership that may or may not represent my opinion(s). It also has the added benefit of derailing conversations that try to paint me into a political corner.


----------



## joebonni63 (May 4, 2017)

It's so funny how deep we let the Liberal go and ruin things because we are both Americans and Christians and they try to place us in a box to keep us quite. Johnson's idea was to stop the Christian in order to get more Liberal votes for the most part it worked in most cases. In resent times they have stopped teaching children history in a hard kinda way because if you know that Liberals and Atheist have cause most of the problems in America you would never vote for them. The last part Bibles in schools funny the Atheist wins again with 89% Christians and 3% Atheist they have more power why because we let them. We are now as Christians starting to wake up and it's about time.

Having politics in Church is a great idea we vote and are Americans so it should be that way not 501c3 that's not American. So now we can do it bye bye Clinton's lol


----------



## Warren (May 4, 2017)

Like it or not, religion camps down stream from the polis. Your ballot may say unaffiliated, or however that works, but Christians are dogmatics who ipso facto are the blood enemies of liberalism and progressives, and these are the scum who control the government. The progressives will not listen to even the most universalist heretic on standby. Church=crimespeak


----------



## OPC'n (May 5, 2017)

I think it's important to have the Gospel stand above all things including voting. But just as we don't run away from the world (working and living among the unsaved), we shouldn't run away from voting. Voting for a certain party and arguing for that party no matter what, really isn't putting the Gospel first. However, voting for the person who represents Godly things (pro-life) is a duty given to us by God for now....one day we won't have freedom to vote and our duty in this area will be done. Voting for the lesser evil isn't living the Gospel. Living the Gospel is recognizing that God puts into power those he wants in power, and our duty is to find the man who represents Godly rule and vote for them even when we know they most likely won't win. I don't feel it's wrong to tell ppl I vote for a certain man bc he is pro-life etc which lines up with Godly values. I think our conversations with unbelievers of why we vote for whom we vote should be lathered in the Gospel.


----------



## KMK (May 5, 2017)

joebonni63 said:


> It's so funny how deep we let the Liberal go and ruin things because we are both Americans and Christians and they try to place us in a box to keep us quite. Johnson's idea was to stop the Christian in order to get more Liberal votes for the most part it worked in most cases. In resent times they have stopped teaching children history in a hard kinda way because if you know that Liberals and Atheist have cause most of the problems in America you would never vote for them. The last part Bibles in schools funny the Atheist wins again with 89% Christians and 3% Atheist they have more power why because we let them. We are now as Christians starting to wake up and it's about time.
> 
> Having politics in Church is a great idea we vote and are Americans so it should be that way not 501c3 that's not American. So now we can do it bye bye Clinton's lol



Since this thread is in the Theological Forum, let's try to keep the discussion away from specific politicians and parties and focus more on general casuistry.


----------



## Jack K (May 5, 2017)

Herald said:


> I resigned as a member of a certain political party last summer. I'm now now officially "unaffiliated" (independent). I can still vote (or not) according to my conscience, but I'm no longer encumbered with a party membership that may or may not represent my opinion(s). It also has the added benefit of derailing conversations that try to paint me into a political corner.



Interesting. I considered dropping my party affiliation last year, but decided not to because it might keep me from participating in some of the candidate selection process in my state. I think if I were a pastor, though, I would go independent—as a witness to the fact that the church serves a higher truth than any political platform. When I was a professional journalist I was independent, again because it seemed the proper face to put on my role in society at the time.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 5, 2017)

Jack K said:


> Interesting. I considered dropping my party affiliation last year, but decided not to because it might keep me from participating in some of the candidate selection process in my state. I think if I were a pastor, though, I would go independent—as a witness to the fact that the church serves a higher truth than any political platform. When I was a professional journalist I was independent, again because it seemed the proper face to put on my role in society at the time.


Well you can drop it now. We went from State party conventions to open primaries...weird...


----------

