Why are so many Christians more interested in politics than evangelism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear this charge that there are people who think that by passing laws that people will be saved. I don't really run in any circles like that, does someone have an example of these people?

There are those of us who believe that abortion is wrong because it violates God's Laws and thereby His character. Not everything has to do with saving people, but this has to do with restraining evil and punishing it. Now woe to us if we do not preach the gospel, and particularly in some circles they do not preach much if any of the gospel. And this is dreadful.

But, the Civil Magistrate upholds Gods Laws and punishes evildoers. The Church proclaims the gospel and preaches the Good News. Working hand in hand like this they would be a powerful force for good!

Yep they would be a powerful force, but can you honestly say that one day everyone in government will be a Christian working hand in hand with the church? And if they do you then have to decide which denomination they will represent. Seems like an unlikely event.


Can you honestly say that it wouldn't be possible? Regardless if it was possible or not - is it not what we "ought" to do as Christians? Wouldn't it be glorious if Christians stopped voting for the lesser of two evils and began to vote for those that called Christ King!
 
Last edited:
Seems like an unlikely event.

Jesus commissioning 12 working class guys from Galilee to change the world as they knew it within their lifetime also seems like an unlikely event, but it happened. With God, all things are possible. The fact that the human mind can see no likely way to accomplish a goal does not place any limitation on Christ and His goal.

True God can do anything. But the apostles never were political and never tried getting only Christians into office. Probably bc they knew as Christ said his kingdom is not of this world . His command was to spread the Gospel to all. Never did he say to "establish my kingdom here on earth". All of the earth's inhabitants will be Christians once he comes again.
 
Here is a quote from John Newton from his letters:

"The whole system of my politics is summed up in this one verse, "The Lord reigns! Let the nations tremble!" Psalm 99:1

The times look awfully dark indeed; and as the clouds grow thicker--the stupidity of the nation seems proportionally to increase. If the Lord had not a remnant here, I would have very formidable apprehensions. But He loves His children; some are sighing and mourning before Him,
and I am sure He hears their sighs, and sees their tears. I trust there is mercy in store for us at the bottom; but I expect a shaking time before things get into a right channel--before we are humbled, and are taught to give Him the glory.

The state of the nation, the state of the churches--both are deplorable! Those who should be praying--are disputing and fighting among themselves! Alas! how many professors are more concerned for the mistakes of government--than for their own sins!"

There's nothing to add in this.
 
Don't want to go off-topic, but I want to qualify my statement before I make it in that I'm all for the outlaw of abortion, but there seems to be a contradiction in that on the one hand Christians don't want the government to meddle with the affairs of the church and on the other hand they do by wanting that same government to outlaw abortion. To me the only solution appears to be a fully instituted Christian Theonomic government. Is it just me or is there an inconsistency among Christians and their presuppositions regarding this?

Outlawing abortion isn't meddling in the affairs of the church.

Some/many Reformed Christians don't view their opposition to theonomy as inconsistent, because they view theonomy as inconsistent in its call for laws which were part of the Old Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace to be simplistically transferred to the statute books of modern non-Christian and Christian states.

The subject of theonomy can be discussed at the PB section on theonomy.
 
I just wonder what people really mean when they say "I'm a Christian"?????????

I'm this and I'm that. I belong to to this group or that ministry, they use to say.


That just come from people full of themselves. That's why they take part and they judge about political issues, because they are still full of themselves.

Churches are full of people going to church for the sake of have the right to say, "I go to church", what translated is, "I am a good guy"..........that is not "salt" at all........ that's so dull and boring. Parents take their children to church with that same mentality and then they complain why their kids are not living a "Christian" life!
More and more Cultural "Christianity"!


WE ARE FOREIGNERS, WE ARE STRANGERS, we are PILGRINS IN THIS WORLD.....
"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier. " said Apostol Paul to Pastor Timothy in his Second Letter.
 
I had to look up "Demostheian," and it was hard, and I had to settle for Demosthes, or something like that, anyway, he was supposed to be a great orator and debator. If that is what you mean, yes, I do think he is Demostheian, and a great asset in that sense.

It is not so much I like or don't like Ralph Reed as a figurehead. I like the whole organization.

And to Francisco I say, why would political involvement imply a cultural yet not sincere Christianity? That is what you seem to be saying. Why fear the political sphere?

This world is ours. We will inherit it. Go take dominion! If politics is not your main interest, that is fine, but why opine (unless I read you wrongly) that a believer engaged in politics is somehow doing poorly?

I will not cede any area of life to our enemy. I am not sure why this one area (politics) is held to the side so often, as something out of all of life the believer must shun.
 
I hear ya sister. I think it comes down to the truth that the government will enforce some form of morality on its citizens. The Row vs. Wade was moral declaration that everyone woman has the choice to terminate a pregnancy. That's why I think the only solution is to replace the current governmental system with a Christian one where the law of the land is the scriptures and the scriptures along.

P. Geek,

"on the one hand Christians don't want the government to meddle with the affairs of the church and on the other hand they do by wanting that same government to outlaw abortion."

I think this goes to sphere sovereignty. The church has its sphere; the government has its sphere; the family has its sphere. But there is legitimate overlap.

For example, I do want the government-funded fire dept. to come put the fire out if our building is on fire. I do want the police to pursue threatening letters addressed to our church. They can require basic zoning, like no neon signs in a residential neighborhood, or garbage cans brought back in within 24 hours. This is their legitimate sphere. However they can't tell us how to worship, or whether we may, or appoint our elders, etc.

So the church may tell the government that they must forbid abortion, that homosexuality should not be promoted, that stealing even in more muted forms is a sin, etc. The church has no legitimate "force," police or what have you. It is limited to admonition and prayer and such. Perhaps, arguably, some resistance (for another thread I'm sure). To fail to call our public officials to account, or to behave as though their promotion and pursuit of evil is ok, would be wrong. That is a particular role of ours.
 
I had to look up "Demostheian," and it was hard, and I had to settle for Demosthes, or something like that, anyway, he was supposed to be a great orator and debator. If that is what you mean, yes, I do think he is Demostheian, and a great asset in that sense.

It is the oldest collegiate debating society in the country, and one of two at the University of Georgia. In the 70s and 80s, it was one of the few places that conservatives could gather. The competing organization devolved into a social club for the homosexuals on campus during the same era.
 
But, the Civil Magistrate upholds Gods Laws and punishes evildoers. The Church proclaims the gospel and preaches the Good News. Working hand in hand like this they would be a powerful force for good!

But not properly kept in their prescribed spheres they also open the door for a theocracy or a church committing adultery with politics for the sake of power and influence. This is not a temptation faced only by Rome in the Middle Ages or the Anglican Church in England.
 
To be honest, I think many Christians are in need of rebuke for the amount of hope they have placed in their candidate getting elected.

Yes. I believe your statement is spot on.

+10. We too often put more faith and stock in our candidates than in our God who is sovereign over the affairs of men, and this erroneous idea is not isolated to one political side or the other.
 
But, the Civil Magistrate upholds Gods Laws and punishes evildoers. The Church proclaims the gospel and preaches the Good News. Working hand in hand like this they would be a powerful force for good!

Or a powerful force for evil. I think I would rather have corrupt politicians in power then what would come from a so-called 'godly' government. Reminds me of this CS Lewis quote.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C. S. Lewis
 
"I think I would rather have corrupt politicians in power then what would come from a so-called 'godly' government. Reminds me of this CS Lewis quote."

Wow. I can't believe you said that.
 
The CS Lewis quote explains my thoughts. I don't think it is possible to have a godly government.
 
I don't think it is possible to have a godly government.

Wow. I can't believe you said that. So, it's possible to have godly self-government, godly family government, godly church government, but not a godly civil government? What is your evidence for this? Were there not times in England, Scotland and Switzerland when this was the case? What about local governments? Do you think it impossible that there could be a godly city council?
 
Do you not believe that revivals can occur by the grace of God? Do you not believe that this can extend to the government that a revived people choose?
 
Want an example (albeit old) of too much politics and not enough Gospel? Consider Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, circa 1995:

"All our gospel preaching hasn't stopped...a tidal wave that threatens our very survival." "Why do [Christians] cling to an obviously inadequate solution?"

Beyond the Culture Wars, Dr. Horton, p. 73.
 
Perhaps this is just the gravity of the moment settling in, the election, et. al.
But it seems there is indeed a correlation between freedom, i.e. the political state, and the ability to evangelize freely.
And a correlation between government dependency and the perceived need for evangelism, on the other hand.
 
Hi! Why do you think it is that many who claim to be Christians seem to be more concerned and excited about getting a particular politician in office or getting abortion outlawed (I am all for voting and fighting against abortion) than proclaiming the saving message of Jesus Christ to those who are lost? Seems people are willing to be scorned for their political and moral belief's but not so much for sharing their faith in Jesus Christ. I know there are many Christians who do both politics and evangelism rightly but their does seem to be a large group in America who think if we can just get certain politicians in and change laws then peoples hearts will be changed and people will then be saved. Whereas I see it we need to be be telling people about the wrath and love of God first so that He will change their hearts and then laws will be changed as people are changed. I am not a postmillenalists (I lean towards amill) so I do not see the world getting any better but worse though under God's sovereign hand and within His time table. Not that we should not be doing our part as Christians to influence the culture but the commission we have been given is to spread the Gospel not a political party or moral laws (as good as they may be). It is not an either/or issue but I do think the Gospel needs to take priority. Just curious your thoughts given the season we are in.

Any books you know of that address this issue rightly?

Thanks!


For His Glory-
Matthew

Hello Matthew,

Psalm 8 is in part quoted in Hebrews 2.

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.


It seems to indicate man has responsibilites in all spheres of life. Many postmill writers take note of this.While Jesus spoke of the Kingdom reign being of heavenly origin it extends to this earth in and through believers.
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.


in Numbers we read this:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

This principle would indicate God's judgment on our land for the blood of aborted babies.
It does not need to be an either or...but both and. The gospel is about salvation...but also about The Kingdom reign.
From Ken Gentry postmillenialism made easy
In fact, the most important prophetic psalm in the Old Testament
declares that Christ will be seated at God’s right hand until all of his
enemies become his footstool (Psa. 110:1). This dramatic declaration is
so important that it becomes the most cited Old Testament verse found
16 Postmillennialism Made Easy
Quotations include: Matt 22:1 44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; Luke 20:42–43;
22:69; Acts 2:34–35; Heb 1:13. Allusions may be found in: 1 Cor 15:24; Eph
1:20–22; Phil 2:9–11; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12, 13; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21.
in the New Testament.1 Note that his enemies become his footstool while
he is seated at God’s right hand (where he appears after his ascension: Acts
2:33–35; 5:31; 7:56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12;
12:2; 1 Pet 3:22) — not after leaving that place and returning to earth at his
second coming. Again, his victory will occur in contemporary history as
Christ presently rules from heaven
.


So some see us carrying out the Great Commission extending Kingdom rule in both spheres as part of the gospel of both salvation from sins reign and kingdom living.
 
But, the Civil Magistrate upholds Gods Laws and punishes evildoers. The Church proclaims the gospel and preaches the Good News. Working hand in hand like this they would be a powerful force for good!

Or a powerful force for evil. I think I would rather have corrupt politicians in power then what would come from a so-called 'godly' government. Reminds me of this CS Lewis quote.

Woah! How is it possible for such words to come from your ... fingers? You would desire to live under a government that sanctions murder, that sanctions rape, sanctions the blasphemy of God's name, outlaws His Church, mistreats the poor, and promotes immorality? Don't even know where to begin.

And you'd rather have this than living under a society that acknowledges the rule of God, and His Laws? No wonder the Church is such a mess, with this sort of sloppy, and frankly juvenile thinking.
 
And you'd rather have this than living under a society that acknowledges the rule of God, and His Laws?

No. Not at all. It's like no one even bothered reading the quote. I will break it down for you then.

Godly society with no abuses of power and run perfectly = Good
Secular society run by crooked politicians = Bad
godly society run by 'moral busybodies' who start abusing their power = Terrifying

Nonetheless, my comments to your post did come out of left field and I apologize for that. I should have read more of the thread.
 
Last edited:
And you'd rather have this than living under a society that acknowledges the rule of God, and His Laws?

No. Not at all. It's like no one even bothered reading the quote. I will break it down for you then.

Godly society with no abuses of power and run perfectly = Good
Secular society run by crooked politicians = Bad
godly society run by 'moral busybodies' who start abusing their power = Terrifying

Nonetheless, my comments to your post did come out of left field and I apologize for that. I should have read more of the thread.

That's not godly government. Godly government enforces God's law.

This discussion has been somewhat derailed. Perhaps we should start a new thread on what godly civil government looks like and does.
 
I am old enough to remember when many Christians thought politics were "too worldly." I think Roe v. Wade really woke many people, particularly in light of writers like Francis Schaeffer urging that the gospel applies to all areas of life. The 1980s brought a kind of flowering of this perspective but took it too far. The Reconstructionists really rode this wagon.

We live first in the kingdom of Christ. We should be salt and light to the world around us no matter what the political party or political line. But we should never place our hope in a candidate or political party. The gospel alone can address the fall and the sinful hearts of men.

I linked to this blog right before the election. You might find it interesting and a far better explanation than I can give.

I wish I had 10 bucks for everytime I saw an African American congressman, alderman or senate candidate be given not only the pulpit but at least 30-45 mins IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SERVICE to "talk to us about his commitment to better the community" (read: campaign)
The black churches fostered the righteous push to recognize the dignity of all those created in God's image. (In some cases it actually protected the lives of those involved. In one harrowing night, a whole Alabama congregation spent the night with mobs outside the church building and eventually had to be rescued by the National Guard.). I think the political, church connection is perhaps more of a cultural manifestation than a specific confusion of gospel and politics.
 
I don't think it is possible to have a godly government.

Wow. I can't believe you said that. So, it's possible to have godly self-government, godly family government, godly church government, but not a godly civil government? What is your evidence for this? Were there not times in England, Scotland and Switzerland when this was the case? What about local governments? Do you think it impossible that there could be a godly city council?

I believe government can be "godly" relatively speaking (politicians are not infallible, and even in a Christianized state you will have your nominal "believers" in office). I also know from history that godly governments are also short-lived and degenerate into either a godless government or a theocracy. The issue I (and I think a few others here have) is that political activism becomes a substitue for (or put on par with) the gospel and preaching.

If we inherit a godly government, so be it. But it may very well be that we will simply have to submit to the government given us (a la Romans 13) and concentrate more on being salt and light rather than formulating a sort of cultural revolution (like a great many of our Christian forefathers were forced to do in times past).
 
One other question: godly government according to whom? Reformed Christians are not the only Christians occupying America, and there is significant disagreement on some matters that stand a good chance of inevitably working their way into policy. Would you, for example, enact Sabbath Laws? Not all Reformed Christians (like me) agree with the strict interpretation of the Sabbath, and that says nothing about Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, etc., who also have differing views. Or when you have a chaplain pray, which denomination will you select from? This country does not have a monolithic denominational affiliation like Rome, Germany, or Switzerland. Would a Reformed-based legislature have an issue with, say, a Lutheran pastor offering prayer? Or what about having a Wesleyan politician draw up a policy that mandates the recognition of Christmas and Easter? How about a Baptist president advocating the re-enactment of prohibition? Last time I checked, prohibition did a number in strengthening the mob.

Do you see the can of worms you open when going in this direction?

The idea of having a godly government is a good one, and a wonderful one, and certainly government can be better than it is. And to the extent that Christians can and should exert influence in the political sphere via voting and advocation of good policies, they absolutely should. But when you're dealing with questioning the idea of church-state separation in a country that has a plethora of denominations both Christian and cultic who have disagreement on some significant issues, you're risking opening a Pandora's box that may make a bad situation worse.
 
One other question: godly government according to whom? Reformed Christians are not the only Christians occupying America, and there is significant disagreement on some matters that stand a good chance of inevitably working their way into policy. Would you, for example, enact Sabbath Laws? Not all Reformed Christians (like me) agree with the strict interpretation of the Sabbath, and that says nothing about Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, etc., who also have differing views. Or when you have a chaplain pray, which denomination will you select from? This country does not have a monolithic denominational affiliation like Rome, Germany, or Switzerland. Would a Reformed-based legislature have an issue with, say, a Lutheran pastor offering prayer? Or what about having a Wesleyan politician draw up a policy that mandates the recognition of Christmas and Easter? How about a Baptist president advocating the re-enactment of prohibition? Last time I checked, prohibition did a number in strengthening the mob.

Dis-unity is to be addressed like any other problem of man, by adopting a Berean-like attitude of searching the scriptures. That there is currently widespread disagreement on these aforementioned doctrines is not a reason to avoid pursuing a more explicit civil recognition of the true Christian religion.

If the Lord were pleased to bless this nation with revival, wouldn't greater doctrinal unity be a part of that blessing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top