The Magazine "Christianity Today" Understands Christianity
A beautiful blog by a current official at Christianity Today explains the dead end Christianity is headed for when it stays deeply involved in government and politics. It points out a the trap Christianity has already fallen into. The trap is government and politicians guiding religion instead of the other way around.
Philosopher John Locke in the 1600's wrote that when church and state mix, it is more likely the government will influence the church than it is that the church will influence government. When they start becoming one and the same it is often referred to as the "Locke Trap." Locke's shrewd observations of government and religion were so persuasive many think he influenced our country's founders. They prohibited establishment of a state religion.
I am often described by critics here as a humanist, which I acknowledge. I believe humans have always solved their own problems but often have ascribed their own decisions as guidance from gods. Many of these critics, however, then place future of their religious ideas in the hands of their heroic politician, Donald Trump. Trump is a human. What could be more humanist than that?
Trump, a serial sinner, is moving quickly into the center of a set of publicity seeking preachers. As he does so he appears, at least to me, to be following the path of kings and dictators we have read about. Often they became so close to religious leaders of they, not religious leaders, were named head of the church.
Christianity Today understands the vulnerability of Christianity better than many of the non profit religious gurus who have criticized it for endorsing the removal of President Trump. The magazine's leaders see the consequences of a President who conducts the affairs of state without regard for the welfare of other countries nor the laws it President is bound by.
The magazine Christianity Today will survive and some time in the future be admired for warning us about the reckless relationship we see between a President and religion.
Re. 2nd paragraph; sentence two, "...it is more likely the church will influence the church than it is the church will influence government". Should it not be "government will influence the church...?
ReplyDeleteJon; I need not remind you we are not of the collective that Christianity Today represents, not are we of the school of blending church and state.
Helper--Thanks, corrected that. I believe you meant "nor are we of the school..." instead of "not are we..."
ReplyDeleteYes, my bugger finger was a little sticky.-----However, my mistake really did not change the content as your did.
Deletehelper--I agree.
ReplyDeletethis as they say, speaks to an extremely knotty issue, an issue to which I, over the years, have given a great deal of thought. to wit, I have come to agree with Helper: a church that gets too cozy with the state, usually comes out on the short end of the deal. e.g. the Catholic church in Henry's England. Very often, however, it is not a question of coziness: it is, rather, an act of aggression on the part of the state. as in revolutionary France, Bolshevik Russia, Bismarck's Germany, Mexico's Revolutionary government, etc. Regrettably we are seeing some of this sort of thing coming from certain elements within our current political order (e.g. secular humanist circles of Jon's kind. churches are told that they should abandon principles such as contraception and abortion. just shut up and yield the podium to the so-called secularists. religion has absolutely no place in the public square. orthodox Christianity should stay inside the church doors and otherwise conform to the secularist zeitgeist. on that account Trump is bad while Preacher Butterfinger is good. I could go on but once again I think that I am probably wasting my time. Old Jon will probably find some excuse to support his decision to circular file my remarks.
ReplyDeleteBTW a special message for Old Jon. recently he castigated me for asking him to provide sources for his remarks re anthropology. told me that I should look up references on my own. well, Jon I could do just that. but I am interested in your references, I need to evaluate them as to source and credulity. and do remember that you have periodically requested the same of me.
Unknown--"Churches are told they should abandon principles such as contraception and abortion.'
ReplyDeleteFirst, no one is telling churches to abandon anything they believe.
Second, by bringing government into religion to oppose, say, abortion, the Catholic church (and like minded Protestant ones) is risking some other religious views may push theirs aside. The government may start REQUIRING abortions. John Locke had wisdom that Catholics and like minded Protestants choose to ignore at their peril.
Unknown; @ 7;22 re. " "an act of aggression on the part of the state," (or any other faction). Yes, I can see that, but, isn't it a bit more beneficial not to give "them", (whoever they are,) a reason for that aggression? Then if they persist in that aggression, it's on them, not us. The Gospel should not be a threat to anyone if presented in an honest, loving non- confrontational manner. We cannot prevent anyone from disliking Christianity, but we certainly should not give them a reason to.
DeleteI'm reminded of being on the mall in Mpls. when a person confronted me, and asked if I was "saved". It was like fingernails on the blackboard. Saved from what? Who was he to determine if I was or was not. Confrontal judgementalism is not compelling. If I were Jon, I would have said; "thank you". I only responded with: "what you present is not the Gospel of Christ. It is of works, not faith".
one can always argue that state aggression can be attributed to some abuse or provocation on the part of the church itself. including the mere fact of the church's existence seen as a kind of "thorn" in the state's side. most of the time. it seems obvious, however, persecutions arise when the state is taken over by some totalitarianesque party that hates Christianity qua Christianity (as, in recent memory, the case of the Russian Bolsheviks or the Chincoms). now we are being told that opposition to abortion is an improper interference with the secular polity (abortion erroneously labelled as a religious issue). but what of those who would require medical personnel to participate in the abortion regime. or prohibit religious institutions from firing employees who deny church teachings. or require the use of "trans" pronouns . or require churches to provide health insurance coverage for abortion and contraception. or remove any and all Christian symbols from public property (and maybe even from private property). whether Matt or Helper realize it or not, secular humanism is on the march. Jon crows about that, and if he and his cohorts ever get full control of state power? I'll give you one guess.
DeleteUnknown "abortion erroneously labelled as a religious issue"
DeleteA typical statement from an anti abortion zealot, that practices which are listed by religions as religious issues are suddenly not religious issues. This is a political technique carefully honed and practiced by those who endorse the Commandment, "Thou shall not lie."
@ 2;01; "...realize it or not, secular humanism is on the march". Whether you realize it or not, that has been going on since the enlightenment. Remember the French revolution?
DeleteI refer you to Joshua 24;15. ...."As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord"....
You cannot do that for anyone else, nor can you force anyone into it.
I strongly believe the biggest hazard and failure of "the church" in getting involved with politics is; "the church" looses it's compass. The true purpose and compass of "the church" is to present the need of the saving Gospel, (The good news) of Christ to anyone compelled. ( "The Proper distinction".) That is it's only purpose. All the "good things" churches and members do beyond that is the result of what the Gospel has done for them.
ReplyDeleteYes, Christians can be involved in the political / secular arena as citizens. It is their right, but not "the church".
An apolitical "church" welcomes all people, not just Democrats or Republicans, Their political beliefs are left at the door, and they worship at the same alter, not judging or denigrating the other. There are many such churches. You may not hear much of them because that doesn't make "news". In fact, such churches should and do fulfill their purpose under any political system without being a threat to any political system, with the possible exception of an Islamic theocracy. It should not even be a threat to a purely Communistic society.
helper "I strongly believe the biggest hazard of the church..."
DeleteGood post. The only issue I would take from it is this. Parts of Christianity are so fervent they blind minds from being able to differentiate between the faith and the secular. We've seen it countless times on this page. It can be found in both the abortion and gay issues.
Abortion is murder, not because the Catholic clergy say so or because it can be falsely read into the Bible, but because the fetus is actually a human being. The figures and toes. The "heartbeat" when there actually is no heart. Gay marriage should be prohibited not because it is falsely read into the Bible but because the human body is not designed for gay sex. Religion, per se, creates the illusion some issues are not religious.
We are far removed as a culture and government from China. China abandoned their 1-child policy about 2014. The USA will not force anyone to have an abortion. The Catholic Church continues to lobby Congress and the President on government policy. So do lay Catholics. The world and our government are not changing dramatically. However, Roe is on a collision course with itself. We are probably 1 SCOTUS member away from making that happen.
ReplyDeleteMatt; We are talking on two different plains. To share the Gospel is not single issue theology. Your main thrust is in the area of forcing the secular, not the sacred. Check your compass
DeleteMatt--"The USA will not force anyone to have an abortion."
ReplyDeleteSounds like what surely must have been stated in the past, "The Supreme Court will never legalize abortion." "Our courts will never legalize gay marriage."
Add to that, "The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe." 4 more years of Trump will probably result in your nightmare end to legal abortion.
Delete