Is the American Church too Concerned about Politics?

Again we will just part ways here. God Bless

 

Agree, I didn't vote on the poll for this reason.

 

post deleted by poster as unnecessary.

 

I agree.

...Bob

 

Amillennialism or postmillennialism?

...Bob

 

Would you then condone a theocracy? sometimes called a Theo Crazy...LOL:godisgood:

 

​

Thanks Bob - you are correct of course. I meant postmillenialism. I appreciate the heads up.

 

Separation of church and state is a Baptist distinctive, illustrated by Baptist history here in the U.S. since colonial days.

"Fight for our freedoms." What "freedoms" are you talking about? Where is this "fight" supposed to take place?

...Bob

 

This is the key element in this discussion, IMHO. We Baptists have always stood for the separation of church and state. I don't know there has even been a situation like there is in the US that conservative patriotism is equated to spirituality.

I agree with the statement about 'fighting for freedom' as well. Where do we find that supported in scripture?

 

It seems some forget our American history. This country was founded on freedom and the fighting for it. That is our country, our government, and our laws. New government leaders do not get to come into government and "fundamentally change" whatever they want. That is against our government and our laws. Our laws provide that we defend against such activity. When we do this we are obeying the commandment in scripture to submit to authority.

 

I don't think we find any place in scripture that tells us that we are to fight to defend political liberties. In all of the epistles we never find the church being charged to take up arms and demand their political freedoms from Rome.

Do you not think that if politics was to be a part of church life we would have been instructed concerning it? All we are told to do is obey the law, honour our leaders, pray for our leaders, and not so speak evil of those in authority.

 

May I ask for a bit of clarification here please?

Who you mean by "We"? Churches? Individual Christians? All US citizens?

And what about "regent"? I always thought it meant "someone who acts in place of a monarch who for reasons of youth, illness or absence is unable to rule," but you don't have a monarch in the United States, so clearly you don't mean, "We are ordained to rule this land while the monarch is unable to do so."

 

They can if they are voted in by the people and backed by the courts.

That is the blessing of a two year legislature - we can vote them right back out.

To me that is the right place for Christians to act politically, not on the streets, not in the courts, and not in church. Instead we deal with political issues in the privacy of our prayer closet and in the privacy of the voting booth.

 

All US Citizens, Church and unchurched alike are to participate in the governance of these United States. Either by just simple casting of an informed vote or even the seeking of public office. And if the Public official is not performing according to the will of the People, we must act to remove him or her from office. And yes "Regent" does fit because We are to "Occupy until He (Jesus)comes back" to set up His Kingdom. While that does apply to the Church alone, I feel that if the Church were to remove itself from American politics, it is neglecting its Biblical mandate to be the salt of the earth and its Constitutional duty as a ruling citizen. The Christian that is loyal to their faith and to their country will bring a deeper sense of duty and service to the people that have elected them. I would say that a non-christian wouldn't have as deep a commitment to duty and service but would be more commited to a personal or political agenda.

 

Thanks for that, Palatka51.

Although the "mechanics" may differ in our two countries, here in the UK, too, all citizens can and should be involved in how the country is run, even if that involvement is as you say, "by just simple casting of an informed vote." I hope no non-UK folks are under the mistaken impression that our monarch is an executive head of state, like your President. The official website of the British Monarchy has a section on the role of the monarchy, which begins:

Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Although the British Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, the Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.
​

I had not thought of applying the kingship of Christ in the context of this thread about whether churches in the USA are too concerned about politics. Indeed, I wonder if we are right to do so, in view of the fact that He Himself told us that His kingdom is not of this world.