Stuart DiNenno Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 29 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/13/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2006 In a lot of people's minds one needs to be patriotic as a part of who they are as Christians. We hear the phrase "God and Country" a lot. Most sanctuaries have an American Flag posted and this Sunday there will be the singing of patriotic hymns. Is this too close a connection between faith and patriotism? Are some people convinced they are synonymus? Is there anything wrong with a ministry built mostly on activism? I never liked the mixture of American patriotism and Christianity that is found in many of today's Evangelical churches. You won't find any American flags posted anywhere in the room where we hold our Sunday meetings, we don't sing anything but psalms and religious hymns, and no one preaches sermons exhorting Christians to political activism. They don't discourage their members from being politically involved and they don't condemn patriotism, but the preacher often points out that the political and social movements commonly promoted by today's churches are futile because many of those same churches have turned away from preaching a straightforward and convicting gospel message and have deemphasized the necessity of repentance and obedience to the word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart DiNenno Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 29 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/13/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 We all have to ineract with non-believers, even those who wish for Christians to be more separate. We can look at our recent history and point out how society as a whole has gone down hill from where we used to be, but what about doing what we can as individuals to show the peace and love of our Lord Jesus to those who don't know him? I agree. But we also need to be careful that our "peace and love" is not misconstrued as acceptance of their sinful lifestyles and their rejection of Christ. Harsh condemnation might only harden unbelievers against hearing the truth, but coddling them and appearing to be tolerant of their rebellion against God can also lead them into a false sense of safety. Remember, Paul was always confronting men with the truth knowing "the terror of the Lord" and the consequences for remaining in a state of disobedience. Also, it's true that we must interact with the ungodly. As Paul said to the Corinthians, we would have to leave the world if we were to separate ourselves from all sinners. But he also told them that "evil communications corrupt good manners." We cannot be aloof to the point that we are not able to bear witness of Christ's righteousness in our lives but we also should not be too chummy with people who show no interest in the gospel or those who have already rejected Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,031 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 I will address (edited by moderator) apothanein kerdos posts . . . starting at the beginning . . . apothanein kerdos enters the thread post #31 . . . When Paul says that we are not citizens of this world, he is not calling for us to seperate from the political world or even from the literal world. He is, instead, refering to our obligation to redeem culture. We are not to fall into the political traps or patriotic ferver if it contradicts what the Bible would have us to do. An example of this would be a German in the late 1930's. Patriotism over such a government would contradict Biblical values. Thus, our obligation to Christ is always to come before our obligation to our country. If you live in a nation where the government, culture, and political make up consistently goes against Christ, then being a patriot would probably not be the best thing. . . . Can you substantiate your conjecture that is our Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 Now I am getting frustrated. Not only did you not address anything I responded to and covered, you're going back to old posts and still ignoring the entire thing and dropping the context. Please, I'm simply asking that you accept the context as is instead of taking it out so you can try and prove a point. Can you substantiate your conjecture that is our Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted June 5, 2006 We are told that we should keep our minds on higher things, on the heavenly kingdom, not individual kingdoms or countries. Patriotism is a good thing and it is good to be able to be "ra, ra, the flag" as it gets a bit tiresome being against things all the time. There is so much evil in the world that it is hard to know what we should support. I would like to be patriotic, but I find that patriotism is the support of a country no matter what regime is controlling it and I feel that this country anyway, has been hijacked by political correctness so much that it has become a bit of a joke. And I feel that with some policies and decisions that have been made here recently it must be the laughing stock of the world. In NZ prior to 1984 (gee, what have I heard that date associated with before?) there did seem to be a lot about this country to be proud of. Suddenly in 1984 our politicians decided that they should be real parasites and instead of "doing the job because they actually want to do a public service", they decided that we would have "full time MPs" who would take for themselves from the taxpayer, exorbitant "salaries" which would be out of proportion altogether to the job they would do. This was done without any public discussion at all and very little publicity. Prior to that our MPs had "real jobs" as well and were "part time MPs". To me this is how a small country like this should be run and the idea of having 120 MPs all feeding out of a compulsorily taken public trough and growing fat on over-the-top "salaries" is ridiculous. This parliament's next move was to sell off all our public assets and squander the money, seemingly feeling that all "public" assets belonged personally to the members of government. Hard to feel patriotic about a country that does things like that, isn't it? Then in 2003 NZ became really the laughing stock of the world according to overseas news items that popped up everywhere for a while about one of our minister's introduction of a farm animal "fart tax" allegedly to "comply with the requirements of the Kyoto protocol". Impossible to be patriotic about that. However, all this is nothing compared to the PM and government we have now. We have an amazingly strange woman for a PM who decided right from the start that she "wouldn't "rule" by referendum" and true to her word has gone against massive public opinion and virtually elevated the status of the "gay community" to be NZ's leading citizens. How can anyone support God and at the same time patriotism for a country that has three openly gay and one transsexual MP and "officially apologised" to the gay community for past discrimination? What I mean basically is that how can you be expected to be a Christian and therefore believe scripture and also support a country that "officially" makes laws about "civil unions" (both "same sex" and opposite sex), defines the legal status of marriage and childcare the way that a bunch of weirdos in government want it, want to be officially "secular" or atheist, and "apologised to the gay community" and these things clearly go against God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anika Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 62 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 Stuart, I said, "the peace and love of our Lord Jesus". If it's His love through us, then how can that same love be tollerant of rebillion towards God? On the subject of patriotism, America was founded upon Godly principles. Does that mean mistakes weren't made? Of course there were. The founding fathers were still human, but they prayed for this nation and strived to make policies and write a constitution that was just and Godly. This nation has gone away from those principles, and I for one cannot in any way support the current politics of this country, but I still love the idealism of what America once was. My stand is in reaching individuals for God and waking up Christians to the unfortunate political system we have now embraced. I belong to a third political party- one that supports the very constitutional standards I believe in. I am writing this to point out that nothing can be done in this or any other country until we as individuals get involved. For some that is through activism, for most of us it starts in our back yards and our jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 We are told that we should keep our minds on higher things, on the heavenly kingdom, not individual kingdoms or countries. Patriotism is a good thing and it is good to be able to be "ra, ra, the flag" as it gets a bit tiresome being against things all the time. There is so much evil in the world that it is hard to know what we should support. Actually, from the verse you stated, we know exactly what to support. If we look at the context, we find that prior to Colossians 3 where this is stated, Paul is uplifting the physical world: Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Colossians 2:16-23 Paul is showing the importance of the physical world, that we cannot let our bodies be used in defiling ways or anything that leads to the destruction of the body. Why then would he come about in chapter 3 and condemn part of the physical world? Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:1-11 Once again we see the disctinction is not ontological but instead ethical. Paul is not saying we cannot think on "secular" things, such as government (which is what this thread is ultimately about) or that we cannot be involved in them. Instead, Paul is saying that we cannot adopt the ethics of the world. We think on the things of heaven, which does not refer to "spiritual" things but it means to set our minds towards what is ethically and morally right with God. It means we act in a moral way no matter where are. If we are in politics, we act morally and not immorally, even if it costs us our position. This is what Paul is addressing. Thus, it is easy to know what we should support by comparing it to the ethics of the world. If it is unethical, such as a government position, then avoiding it does not solve the problem. Instead, we lend support to the unethical practice by our inaction. Instead, we become active to stop the corruption we see. In NZ prior to 1984 (gee, what have I heard that date associated with before?) there did seem to be a lot about this country to be proud of. Suddenly in 1984 our politicians decided that they should be real parasites and instead of "doing the job because they actually want to do a public service", they decided that we would have "full time MPs" who would take for themselves from the taxpayer, exorbitant "salaries" which would be out of proportion altogether to the job they would do. This was done without any public discussion at all and very little publicity. Prior to that our MPs had "real jobs" as well and were "part time MPs". To me this is how a small country like this should be run and the idea of having 120 MPs all feeding out of a compulsorily taken public trough and growing fat on over-the-top "salaries" is ridiculous. This parliament's next move was to sell off all our public assets and squander the money, seemingly feeling that all "public" assets belonged personally to the members of government. Hard to feel patriotic about a country that does things like that, isn't it? A patriot, at least a true one, will not always support what his nation does. In fact, true patriots feel the obligation to liberate their nation if it is taking the wrong course of action too many times. Instead of being upset, maybe seeking a way to change the system would be more in order. Again, I point to William Wilberforce who stayed in politics after accepting Christ and eventually, through his efforts, ended slavery in England. Instead of being upset, do something. However, all this is nothing compared to the PM and government we have now. We have an amazingly strange woman for a PM who decided right from the start that she "wouldn't "rule" by referendum" and true to her word has gone against massive public opinion and virtually elevated the status of the "gay community" to be NZ's leading citizens. How can anyone support God and at the same time patriotism for a country that has three openly gay and one transsexual MP and "officially apologised" to the gay community for past discrimination? What I mean basically is that how can you be expected to be a Christian and therefore believe scripture and also support a country that "officially" makes laws about "civil unions" (both "same sex" and opposite sex), defines the legal status of marriage and childcare the way that a bunch of weirdos in government want it, want to be officially "secular" or atheist, and "apologised to the gay community" and these things clearly go against God? I think you confuse patriotism with absolute support. This is not patriotism at all. Take for instance Paul. Paul spoke out against Pagan practices, which were not only supported, but required to be done by the Roman government (hence, persecution of Christians for not supporting paganism). At the same time, Paul told us to be obedient to our governments when we can because of the position. He also was not afraid to use his Roman citizenship. Paul was a Roman patriot because he supported the idea of Rome, the structure of Rome, and the citizenship of Rome, but did not support the practices of Rome. Is that making sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffnevins Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Lotta text. My response? Non. (French) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Apothanein Kerdos you say: "I think you confuse patriotism with absolute support. This is not patriotism at all. Take for instance Paul. Paul spoke out against Pagan practices, which were not only supported, but required to be done by the Roman government (hence, persecution of Christians for not supporting paganism). At the same time, Paul told us to be obedient to our governments when we can because of the position. He also was not afraid to use his Roman citizenship. Paul was a Roman patriot because he supported the idea of Rome, the structure of Rome, and the citizenship of Rome, but did not support the practices of Rome. Is that making sense?" The thing is, I find myself not supporting (as, it would seem, a great majority of NZers do) the strange actions of the PM and a few other control-freak women in government - and they claim to act "on behalf of NZ", and that is the biggest insult. But also I find that I can no longer support the structure of NZ because it has been altered irreversibly. It seems that we are being taught that patriotism is a "thing of a bygone era". You don't see many national flags on public buildings or private houses. It was good to see a few crosses and nativity scenes erected outside private houses in the town at Christmas. I'm sure our PM, if she could, would legislate to make these people take these things down though as she believes that her personal philosophy is "NZ's philosophy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted June 6, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I just read what I had written above and it sounds like "a great majority of NZs support" the actions of the NZ PM. I actually meant to say quite the opposite, that the PM has directly gone against the wishes of a vast majority of the population and her policies are "unpopular" to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts