apothanein kerdos Posted June 1, 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 1, 2006 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? That is dealing with close relationships and business deals if you look to the context. It has literally nothing to do with relating with the world, interacting, and becomming involved in certain aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 1, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Well I have a couple of different thoughts on this topic. I do think individual Christians should be involved in our government and be good citizens we are called to do that. We are also called out to be a separate people. I think we can and should at some level separate from this culture, which is not a healthy Christian culture in any way shape or form. Sometimes standing apart IS how we influence culture, we influence it by leading and being different, being a light in the darkness. I don't think we can change a culture if we are simply embracing it. The reason St. Benedict left Rome to start his monastic community was the abject paganism and corruption he saw around him. We should not be as materialistic as the culture at large; we should lead simpler and more peaceful lives. Does this mean living like the Amish or being a monk? No, but I don't disrespect the Amish and their radically counter-cultural life-style. Every day they show us we don't need all of the things that we think we HAVE to have. Paul says that having food and clothing, with these we shall be content, he tells us to work with our own hands, to be blameless and harmless in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, which is what America looks like today. Christ Himself tells us to not seek wealth, to not worry or have an anxious mind about material things, to live simply and humbly, to sell what we have and give to the poor. Do we see that when we turn on the t.v? And listen to these self-professed Christian leaders? I don't, in fact I see the American trash culture writ large on these guys, its all about cars, money, women and ego, the inverse of what Christ has called us to. So yes be a good citizen, vote support causes, which we care about, but I also think that we must separate ourselves from this culture, sometimes radically. Both are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 1, 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 1, 2006 We are also called out to be a separate people. I think we can and should at some level separate from this culture, which is not a healthy Christian culture in any way shape or form. Sometimes standing apart IS how we influence culture, we influence it by leading and being different, being a light in the darkness. I don't think we can change a culture if we are simply embracing it. The reason St. Benedict left Rome to start his monastic community was the abject paganism and corruption he saw around him. This means we are seperated ethically, not spacially. The problem is, we are NEVER called to disengage from culture or to somehow abandon it. What St. Benedict did was absolutely wrong because he left those people instead of trying to help encourage change. We cannot be a light in the darkness if we are not surrounded by the darkness to begin with. We should not be as materialistic as the culture at large; we should lead simpler and more peaceful lives. Does this mean living like the Amish or being a monk? No, but I don't disrespect the Amish and their radically counter-cultural life-style. Every day they show us we don't need all of the things that we think we HAVE to have. Paul says that having food and clothing, with these we shall be content, he tells us to work with our own hands, to be blameless and harmless in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, which is what America looks like today. Christ Himself tells us to not seek wealth, to not worry or have an anxious mind about material things, to live simply and humbly, to sell what we have and give to the poor. Do we see that when we turn on the t.v? And listen to these self-professed Christian leaders? I don't, in fact I see the American trash culture writ large on these guys, its all about cars, money, women and ego, the inverse of what Christ has called us to. No one is asking us to adopt the ethics of the culture but instead to reach out to the culture we have and try to influence it. When concerning politics we admit it is corrupt and many times a vote is based upon the number of votes it will get the elected official. This is a negative aspect of the political culture that Christians should not partake in. However, we should be involved in the political process and attempt to do the most ethical job we can whilst in politics. It is the same in whatever we do. We are seperated from this world by our ethics, not by our physical presence or lack thereof. I do disrespect the Amish because they do nothing for Christianity, they violate scripture by secluding themselves, and in the end have accomplished nothing. The entire point behind salvation is for us to reach out to those around us. If we seperate ourselves from this culture completely instead of ethically, then we have violated the entire point of the New Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechild Posted June 1, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 195 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 1, 2006 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? That is dealing with close relationships and business deals if you look to the context. It has literally nothing to do with relating with the world, interacting, and becomming involved in certain aspects. is this the opinion of one or of many? the questions still remain. do you say righteousness has felloship with unrighteousness in the political arena? and that light can commune with darkness in this world? do different contexts permit different truths? i thought situational ethics was frowned upon by the orthodoxy. well, if you wont believe paul, will you believe jesus? john 18 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. jesus was speaking to pilate, the head of the secular in the entire region. do you think that jesus would have accepted an offer of a cabinet post at that point? but seriously, this was another one of those "those with ears to hear, let them hear" moments. from this point on, jesus is making it clear that god was wiping his hands of this world system. it was given over to the evil one to rule on his own, and he has done so ever since. no earthly political or religious organization on earth is of god, and it has been so since the moment of that quote. man, the great deceiver, the false accusor, the one who is opposed to all that is godly, has been on his own the last 2000 years. can you tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 1, 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 1, 2006 is this the opinion of one or of many? It's the proper interpretation come to by looking at the context, original language, and history behind the context by many, many, many men and women. Wittmer, Moreland, Pearcey, Schaeffer, Guinness, Lewis....just to name a few. the questions still remain. do you say righteousness has felloship with unrighteousness in the political arena? and that light can commune with darkness in this world? do different contexts permit different truths? i thought situational ethics was frowned upon by the orthodoxy. The problem is you assume contact somehow means fellowship. Paul, in this passage, is speaking to the ecclesiastical fellowship of the lost marrying Christians, Christians entering into close relationships with the lost, and most importantly false apostles attempting to gain power within the church (refer to 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 where we see this was a problem). Paul is not, however, saying we cannot engage our culture on every level. You say that light cannot have fellowship with darkness...and this is true, there cannot be a fellowship. However, in order for light to function properly, it must be in the middle of darkness. THere is no point in shining your flashlight outside on a bright summer day. That would be a waste of energy. Instead, you use your flashlight in the bitch black of night. Christians are the same. We do not gain the ethics of the world but we are most certainly in the middle of the world. ell, if you wont believe paul, will you believe jesus? john 18 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. jesus was speaking to pilate, the head of the secular in the entire region. do you think that jesus would have accepted an offer of a cabinet post at that point? I am not sure I can agree with your interpretation on this. My reasoning is that Jesus is speaking specifically of His kingdom. Paul addresses this later saying we are citizens of this kingdom. However, what is the point of Christianity? To help bring about God's kingdom on this earth, correct? How do we do that? By engaging our culture at every single level. but seriously, this was another one of those "those with ears to hear, let them hear" moments. from this point on, jesus is making it clear that god was wiping his hands of this world system. it was given over to the evil one to rule on his own, and he has done so ever since. no earthly political or religious organization on earth is of god, and it has been so since the moment of that quote. The problem with this is that your interpretation contradicts other portions of scripture, which inherenly means your interpretation is wrong. For instance, you say that God has removed His hand from these earthly governments and that He has nothing to do with them. If that is the case, why does Paul say in Romans that these governments are established by God? Instead, what Christ was saying is that He held ultimate authority. Pilate was attempting to throw around his authority, stating that if he wanted, he could save Christ. Christ responded by saying, "I have more authority than you do, I have authority over this world...yet I am choosing to die." That was the point of what Jesus said, not that He was suddenly nullifying all governments. JEsus was showing that under His authority He was choosing to die and that the Roman government was merely a tool in His ultimate plan. man, the great deceiver, the false accusor, the one who is opposed to all that is godly, has been on his own the last 2000 years. can you tell? Wow, that is a very Deist approach to the world. Man HAS NOT been on his own at all. God is still extremely active. If man were on his own, then the promise of the Holy Spirit was an absolute lie from Jesus. The Holy Spirit IS God, He is here to help us and guide us. Man has not been on his own at all. I'm going to highly encourage that you buy a few books: Heaven is a Place on Earth by Dr. Michael Wittmer Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey Death in the City by Francis Schaeffer Those are three good books that I would recommend to anyone to get started on developing a Christian worldview. They show how we cannot become a part of the ethical culture, but that we should be in the middle of the physical culture...and this includes politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted June 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,041 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 426 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2006 . . . what is the point of Christianity? To help bring about God's kingdom on this earth, correct?. . . The Kingdom of God, though experienced in the heart of men, is not realized in the flesh. 1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Lu 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 2, 2006 We are also called out to be a separate people. I think we can and should at some level separate from this culture, which is not a healthy Christian culture in any way shape or form. Sometimes standing apart IS how we influence culture, we influence it by leading and being different, being a light in the darkness. I don't think we can change a culture if we are simply embracing it. The reason St. Benedict left Rome to start his monastic community was the abject paganism and corruption he saw around him. This means we are seperated ethically, not spacially. The problem is, we are NEVER called to disengage from culture or to somehow abandon it. What St. Benedict did was absolutely wrong because he left those people instead of trying to help encourage change. We cannot be a light in the darkness if we are not surrounded by the darkness to begin with. We should not be as materialistic as the culture at large; we should lead simpler and more peaceful lives. Does this mean living like the Amish or being a monk? No, but I don't disrespect the Amish and their radically counter-cultural life-style. Every day they show us we don't need all of the things that we think we HAVE to have. Paul says that having food and clothing, with these we shall be content, he tells us to work with our own hands, to be blameless and harmless in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, which is what America looks like today. Christ Himself tells us to not seek wealth, to not worry or have an anxious mind about material things, to live simply and humbly, to sell what we have and give to the poor. Do we see that when we turn on the t.v? And listen to these self-professed Christian leaders? I don't, in fact I see the American trash culture writ large on these guys, its all about cars, money, women and ego, the inverse of what Christ has called us to. No one is asking us to adopt the ethics of the culture but instead to reach out to the culture we have and try to influence it. When concerning politics we admit it is corrupt and many times a vote is based upon the number of votes it will get the elected official. This is a negative aspect of the political culture that Christians should not partake in. However, we should be involved in the political process and attempt to do the most ethical job we can whilst in politics. It is the same in whatever we do. We are seperated from this world by our ethics, not by our physical presence or lack thereof. I do disrespect the Amish because they do nothing for Christianity, they violate scripture by secluding themselves, and in the end have accomplished nothing. The entire point behind salvation is for us to reach out to those around us. If we seperate ourselves from this culture completely instead of ethically, then we have violated the entire point of the New Testament. The only way this culture will be influenced is by individually turning to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Governments don't convert, people convert. The Amish HAVE been a light to the world, their evangelism is their uniqueness. Most people in the US have heard of the Amish because they do stand apart they have an ongoing congregational lifestyle for hundreds of years, something very few evangelical congregations in the US can claim, and they have done it without falling into our cultural mess. Certainly I don't totally agree with them on all of their ideas, but I don't agree with quite a few congregations on specific issues. If the Amish made no difference we wouldn't be talking about them we would not know of them. Or St. Benedict, his monastic tradition is around today, practiced as it was in the year 400, the Roman Empire is not. Indeed he did feed the poor and help the sick that is something monastic communities have always done, he did reach out, and they are and were a light to the world. Just because a group chooses a different more radically counter cultural lifestyle does not mean they are bad. We cannot make any difference if we are just subsumed into this culture. By being separated we in fact do reach out to people, but being just another part of the culture I don't think we make much difference at all. Influencing culture and government does not mean necessarily being part of government and culture. Did Jesus forma lobbying group and lobby Herod and Pilot about the evils of the Roman occupation? Was Christianity made stronger or weaker after the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire? Speaking of the New Testament, indeed how did the first Christians live? Well they lived communally as a separate group. They did not hold office, they did not seek political power, and we know that from the New Testament. They did evangelize and that is something we are all called to do. If you think about if if we put the effort and money into evangelization that we put into being political we might make more of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechild Posted June 2, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 195 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2006 i agree with blindseeker. earthly rule was the mistake of the jews. why should we make the same mistake? i am quite unorthodox in my view of the scripture. i do not see it as an historical document, but a statement of the truth and a blueprint for gods children. i dont doubt that things happened as they are described therein, but the specific things that are recorded for us are not for a history lesson. if that were true, we would know much more about atlantis, the syrrians, the founding of egypt and the things that happened to the east in china. the bible, instead, is a very specific detailing of certain events as they give parable to spiritual things. types and shadows abound throughout history, but the real interacting between men and god has always occured one on one, with individuals. we have no idea how rare these occurances have been, but look at the span of time to give us the few we have record of. it wasnt until the third generation from adam that men began calling upon the name of the lord, whatever that means. jesus came to fulfill the promise of the law and the prophets. and with that task, the record of the world system was no longer pertenent to the lords plans. we do not have scripture detailing the first millenium of the catholic church. in fact, by the looks of things here, most of you think that the catholic church is false. yet 99% of orthodox christianity is based upon those first thousand years, not on the scriptures. in my book, thats the traditions of men. i am of the convicted opinion that all external fulfillment of prophecy these days is intentional in order to deceive. the lord warned us that many would be deceived, even the elect if it were possible. i am not deceived by it. i can see the control that is exerted to move us in a certain dierction, toward peoples preconceptions and misconceptions about the end times and armegeddon and the appearing of our lord, etc. just a cursory look at the history of zionism will show that the premier cornerstone of modern eschatology, the creation of the state of israel, is a purposeful event and is still used today to put fear and anxiety into the hearts of millions of those professing christianity on some level. fearful and anxious people are easily fooled and manipulated. the lord tells us not to trouble ourselves over any of it, yet there is a prophecy forum here, and it remains a very popular subject throughout christianity. i believe it is all false. the kingdom of heaven IS inside of us - lock, stock, and barrel. jesus didnt tell us to start a foundation or build a huge ministry or become involved with the world system at all. he told us to forgive those that harm us. he told us to give to anyone who asks of us and not expect anything in return. he told us to take no thought of what we will eat, what we will wear, or where we lay our heads. seems to me thats all people ever do is exactly the opposite of what jesus said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 2, 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 2, 2006 I am all for a discussion SO LONG AS everyone is respectful and actually responds to what I say. Taking one sentence, quoting my entire post but not really addressing it, or simply repeating your argument that I have already covered, to me, is considered rude and offensive. I consider it this way because I took the time to look at what you said, spent time developing a response, and then you come back and merely repeat or ignore the work I put into it. I am not trying to be mean, I am merely stating that, for the sake of a civil discussion, please respond to what I am saying and not just blanket reply everything. The Kingdom of God, though experienced in the heart of men, is not realized in the flesh. 1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Lu 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. The point I was making is that we are to live as if though the Kingdom of God had already arrived. Had you quoted my entire post, this would be seen . I am not sure I can agree with your interpretation on this. My reasoning is that Jesus is speaking specifically of His kingdom. Paul addresses this later saying we are citizens of this kingdom. However, what is the point of Christianity? To help bring about God's kingdom on this earth, correct? How do we do that? By engaging our culture at every single level This is what I said. When Jesus and Paul both say that the Kingdom is not physical, he means there are no set boundries, there is no established government (that we can see), and it has no capital...yet (it will all be fulfilled when God restores this planet). However, this does not negate the fact that we are to live as if though the kingdom has come. This is what it means to change culture, to effect culture, to influence culture. The entire New Testament, the very point of it, rests upon this idea; that Christians are to live as if though God's kingdom has already come. Since that is the case, we MUST be involved in culture at every level and politics is merely another level at which we must be involved in. The only way this culture will be influenced is by individually turning to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Governments don't convert, people convert. This is partially correct. It is correct in the truth that the only way to permanently change culture for the better is to bring people to Christ. HOWEVER, we can also influence this change and keep Christ in a very realistic realm by influencing our culture. THe problem is Christians began to pull out of our culture once we began to face opposition from Humean Atheists (Athiests influenced by the works of Hume). The point in influencing culture is really three fold: 1) To help bring glory to God in every avenue of culture 2) To help establish a precedence for witnessing and hopefully salvation 3) To at least help Christ seem a plausible alternative in the broad spectrum of things The point is, if you were to walk into a secular university campus, go to a religion class, and begin teaching fundamentalist teachings on the Bible, you would be laughed at and removed. The reason is that because Christians have removed themselves from culture, those in the "intellectual" world no longer see Christ as a plausible entity. If, however, we had remained, though they could debate us, it would be much more plausible to them that Christ existed. The problems that we see in America, specifically in our universities, courts, and political world, are because Christians removed themselves from such areas. The problem is, we don't even realize that we have been put inside of a ghetto, much less that we have willingly gone. The simple fact of witnessing and the great commission is that until we reach out to EVERY SINGLE AVENUE of our culture, we will continue to be worthless in the United States... The Amish HAVE been a light to the world, their evangelism is their uniqueness. Most people in the US have heard of the Amish because they do stand apart they have an ongoing congregational lifestyle for hundreds of years, something very few evangelical congregations in the US can claim, and they have done it without falling into our cultural mess. Certainly I don't totally agree with them on all of their ideas, but I don't agree with quite a few congregations on specific issues. If the Amish made no difference we wouldn't be talking about them we would not know of them. No, the Amish have not been a light to the world. By avoiding the world they have not been a light. Yes, they are known, but they are known as the butt of jokes and possible reality TV series. The fact is, they have done a "good" job at being close, but they have not reached out to the world around them. If we base them on the Biblical idea of what a Christian is suppose to be, they are far from it. Just because we talk about them does not mean they have made a positive difference for the kingdom of God. We talk about the Branch Davidians, the Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. This does not mean, however, that they made a positive difference on this world. Though the Amish do not compare in the evilness done, they do compare in the lack of positive influence they have had on the world around them. Jesus said this: You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Matthew 5:14-16 The point here is that the Amish, and those who lead seclusive lives like them (such as the monks that you somehow hold in high regard), hide their light. Notice what Jesus says. He said the most strategic place for a lamp is in the middle of the room where the most darkness would be. Jesus is stating that we are not to be physically seperate from the world (and you have YET to provide a single ounce of scripture justifying this belief) but instead to be in the middle of the world (physically) shining the lights of God so that our actions bring glory to God. How is this possible if we are observed from afar. That is what people do when they look at monks and the Amish...they are not amongst them, they see their works from afar. This is not what Christ commanded AT ALL. Just because a group chooses a different more radically counter cultural lifestyle does not mean they are bad. We cannot make any difference if we are just subsumed into this culture. By being separated we in fact do reach out to people, but being just another part of the culture I don't think we make much difference at all. Influencing culture and government does not mean necessarily being part of government and culture. The fact of the matter is that at the point they stopped engaging the culture, they did become wrong. I do not accept this post-modern idea of "well, that's simply their way." Yes, there are different ways and methods to reaching the culture, but all have a common thread amongst them; you have to be involved physically with the culture in order to reach it. You cannot make yourself absent from the culture and hope to remedy its probems. Influencing the government and culture...you HAVE to be a part of both in order to influence it. That is a simple rule of logic, in order to properly influence something you must in some way be engaged with what you intend to influence. It is impossible to be absent from the process and yet still influence it. At the point you voice an opinion concerning the matter or try to influence it in anyway, you have become a part of it. Did Jesus forma lobbying group and lobby Herod and Pilot about the evils of the Roman occupation? Was Christianity made stronger or weaker after the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire? First, the Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire fell in the 5th century. The Holy Roman Empire was a 9th century invention and a split from the Frankish Empire. It later became the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation in the 17th century. The fact is, it was not a transformation process from the Roman Empire; it was an entirely new entity. Western Rome fell long before the Holy Roman Empire, which is modern day Germany (which Rome had never controled to begin with), came about. The point in all this is that you were attempting to make a correlation that once Christians got involved in the Roman politics, it somehow turned into this vastly corrupt nation. Instead, I wanted to point out, that the Roman government up until the end (at least in the West) still practiced in many pagan arts. It was not until the end of the 3rd century, right before the fall of Rome, that Paganism was banned in the Western Empire. The fall of Rome, however, had already begun long before this point. Likewise, it was Pope Leo I that was able to turn back Atilla the Hun. A Christian acted as a diplomat, which is a government position, and was able to save thousands of lives. As for Christ, for one, you could not speak out against the Roman government in the time of Christ. The difference between the Roman Empire and modern America is that in the United States we are expected to be involved in politics, or at least have that right. Christ did not. Furthermore, He came to establish His kingdom through workings, not through influencing a corrupt government at His time. He did, however, engage in political discussions and even challenge the leadership of His day. The fact that the Pharisees asked him a political question shows that He had been engaged in such a way in the past. He also, in His sermon on the Mount when addressing the concept of turning the other cheek, appealed to Roman laws in order to strenghten His point. The only way He could have done this is if He understood the political process. The fact is, we, as Christians, are called to a different mission than Christ. Christ's mission was to come, teach us, and then die for our sins. Our job is to be a witness unto what He did AT EVERY LEVEL OF CULTURE. Politics is, once again, part of this culture. Lastly on this point, an issue that you have yet to respond to, if we took your paradigm and applied it to the past, the world would be a much darker place. There would have been no William Wilberforce and subsequently no end to slavery in the British Empire. There would have been no abolitionist party (which later evolved into the Republican party) and thus no Civil War or Emancipation Proclomation. If Christians had avoided government office then we would be in deep trouble. Speaking of the New Testament, indeed how did the first Christians live? Well they lived communally as a separate group. They did not hold office, they did not seek political power, and we know that from the New Testament. They did evangelize and that is something we are all called to do. If you think about if if we put the effort and money into evangelization that we put into being political we might make more of a difference. Your first point couldn't be more wrong. They did not live communally as a seperated group. That is possibly the most historically inaccurate statement I have seen concerning the early church. Any historian will tell you, any student of Acts will tell you, that though they opperated communally and lived together, they were extremely active in culture. In other words, they went out amongst the culture and influenced it at every single level. In fact, we know from a 4th century account from Emperor Julian (who was the last Emperor to persecute Christians) that Christians were involved in their own, in helping the Jews, and in helping the Pagans: "Atheism (The Christian faith, because they denied the existence of Pagan gods) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them." In other words, Christians were not some seperate community of people. They were very much involved in their culture. Likewise, in the Roman era often times Christians had to seperate themselves physically in certain instances because the social event was a sacrifice to a false god, an orgy, or something of the likes. We have historical documentation that Christians were invited but often rejected these...however we also know of Christians putting on their own social gatherings and inviting pagans or attending social gatherings where the events would not be pagan related. We can even look to Acts and find Paul speaking at Mars Hill. Mars Hill was the philosophical capital of the world at that time. This is where politicians would come to debate, philosophers would debate, etc. Paul was involved in this, he was in the middle of it. One could not merely just get up and speak; he had to earn the trust. Once Paul had done so, he engaged them at their level. Regardless, what we see is Paul engaged in the culture, a light in the middle of the darkness. Even when we examine the writings of Paul we find: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul is stating that he becomes all things to all men. This does not mean he adopts these people's ethics, but it means he engages them on their level. This means that Paul is stating that in order to properly bring someone to Christ, we must meet them at their level, i.e. be involved in their culture. This does not mean we take on the ethics of the culture. 1 John 1:15 even deals with this, that we are not to "love" the world. Well "love" and "world" in this context is refering to adopting the morals of the world. We are not to do this. We are, however, to be amongst the world (physically) sharing the Gospel. The Amish, the monks, anyone that physically seperates himself completely from this culture no longer holds the capacity to fulfill such a commandment and therefore, no matter how spiritual we might think they are, biblically they are a failure. TheChild...no offense, but I do not see how your post addresses what I wrote in response to you much less with this topic. If you could explain how it is a reply or even deals with this topic, I would be very grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechild Posted June 2, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 195 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2006 AK quote "TheChild...no offense, but I do not see how your post addresses what I wrote in response to you much less with this topic. If you could explain how it is a reply or even deals with this topic, I would be very grateful." the question is, " Do Christians need to be patriotic in order to be godly?" and my point is that being involved with this world is not what we are called to do. our allegience is to the father and our eyes are to be set on the things above. we are to be "wise a serpents", yes, and have a clear mind and our eyes and ears open tso that we are aware, but not involved. it is, quite frankly, none of our business. just like it is none of any governments business what god people serve. but they certainly make it their business in many ways. it is the lords battle, not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts