Is the church supposed to have power and influence over government?
You have to look to the Old Testament for a positive answer to that. And then you have to substitute “Israel” (God’s people) for UK/USA/etc… and then you have to start interpreting every mention of “nation” (meaning Israel – the people of God) as being for our nation.
As best, that is extraordinarily bad theology (skipping exegesis and going straight to hermeneutics). At worst, you end up with the crusades and the inquisition and many other atrocities committed in the name of Christendom.
Jesus never tried to change laws or legalise faith. In fact, the only time he had any contact with the authorities was at his trial. He sought to put right what was wrong by going to those who were wronged.
Are we, the church, meant to be at the centre of society telling others how to live and what is right and wrong? When we assume that we have the right to the centre stage and the right to demand legal enforcement of our views are we doing justice to our saviour? He actually refused that opportunity repeatedly when the Jews tried to make him a military king to restore the kingdom of Israel?
Is that not extreme arrogance on our part?
I cannot see that anywhere in Jesus’ life or the life of his disciples through the New Testament? Should we be fighting for legislation to stop people doing what we don’t agree with?
Should we be standing with a loud haler and yelling at the world because they do not live the way we think they should?
Even if we did have that right (or even responsibility) surely we should be consistent. If we are going to rant and rave about gay marriage, then how can we not demand legislation on promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, adultery, hatred, anger, greed, selfishness…?
In Philip Yancey’s book, “Soul Survivor” an aids worker comments, “I have noticed that Christians do not like people who sin in different ways from them”. The gay community are an easier target than the others on that list I suppose because its easy for us to not feel guilty of that. Is it not a tad hypocritical though?
Does it not confirm people’s impression of the church as judgemental, legalistic and {____}*phobic?
Does it not present an image of Jesus to the world that bears almost no resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible?
Should we not, instead, do as he did and seek to love people?
Instead of getting all hot under the collar about changing laws, should we not use our energy to change hearts?
Isn’t that what Jesus did, or am I being too simplistic?
Probably.
*insert as appropriate
6 Comments
Nick Thomas would encourage this comment….
AMEN! (said in an enthusiastic American accent)
Very thought provoking… I am inclined to agree with you 🙂
This is not about sinning in a different way from Christians (to use the quote from Yancey).Its about legislation changing the very nature of reality and devaluing the institution of marriage and the further destruction of the family.
Will it stop here? Probably not. Will schools be forced to teach this new cultural Marxist paradigm? Most likely yes.
So if Christians still have a window in which to speak out against something so destructive ,should they not be allowed to do so? What’s so unloving about that?
Just because something is being pushed by a political elite does not make it right.
But wait a minute…..are you relativizing here? – “Are we, the church, meant to be at the centre of society telling others how to live and what is right and wrong?” You say.
I think the answer is Yes. Its called The Gospel ,and the message of the gospel does indeed give moral and epistemological guidance as well as bringing us to repentance and faith. In fact was Jesus being arrogant when he said I AM THE TRUTH?
Amazingly you also ask – ” Should we be fighting for legislation to stop people doing what we don’t agree with?”
Wait a minute….is it really a case of what we don’t agree with? Or is it not more a case of what God does not agree with?
When William Carey the missionary used pressure to change the law on the practice of Sati ( burning the living wife of a dead husband on his funeral pyre) was he being judgemental and legalistic? When Francis A Schaeffer made movies and wrote books to speak against abortion was he being arrogant?
So when Christians use their votes and pool their resources to try and further prevent our society from going to hell in a hand basket why do you speak of them as if they are bigots?
I am slightly intrigued by your redefinition of “the gospel” (the good news of the kingdom) as the church telling people what is right and wrong and how they should behave. I am struggling to see Jesus doing this (apart from to the religious people who, ironically were the ones who sought to implement religious law).
I would suggest that the cases that you have suggested are more about standing up for the oppressed and defending the weak than legalising our values.
I am sorry that you feel that i am labeling people as bigots. This was not my intention. I am merely questioning whether seeking to legislate what we believe in has a place in our faith or whether loving people and showing them a better way is a more Christ-like approach.
Lets just say i agree with you 100%. Why does the church not campaign with equal vigour about restricting greed, selfishness, hatred, promiscuity, adultery, drunkeness? Why just homosexuality? Will people no longer commit homosexual acts if we succeed? Will people be made whole if we succeed?
In fact, will ANYONE experience freedom as a result of it? THAT is my issue.
The good news of the gospel does indeed bring moral and spiritual transformation and also takes us from the relativistic values of post-enlightenment thought to the absolute values of the Kingdom. There is space to speak about right and wrong rather than ‘what we believe now’ or ‘what I think is right’ or ‘what is right for me’.
The campaign against the redefinition of marriage is not about Christians trying to succeed in changing something. Its about trying to preserve what is already in place ,but has been worn down by forty years of liberal thinking to the point that the meaning has been almost lost.
And as for gay people, how many of them want this change? It is being pushed by radicals and politicians seeking for a zeitgeisty re-branding that will make them more ‘relevant’
Have you not wondered why people such as Peter Tatchell would push the SSM agenda? And anyone else who was involved in the Gay Liberation Front? These are people who set out to destroy the family and marriage. (look up the GLF manifesto)
Perhaps this is their opportunity.
This is not merely an issue about homosexuality, its the disintegration of the bedrock of society ,marriage and the family into an idealistic experiment in radical social engineering. That’s why it is so important.
It worries me that you seem to imply that Christians have no right to raise this issue in the public square. Is our faith based on truth? Or do we concede our views to the facts/values dichotomy where Christian ‘truth’ is relegated to the upper story category of mere values?
It seems that we agree on all the fundamentals but we disagree on how we respond to them.
I can live with that and I hope that you can. Thanks for your stuff.