 |
| Enjoy it while it lasts... |
Sermon link from Pastor Michael Phillips
I will preface by stating that I have much overall agreement with Pastor Michael Phillips' worldview and theology. I am therefore not surprised to be in basic agreement with his views on the Church and politics.
It should be noted that I live in Canada and not the United States of America. There is less drastic left versus right, politically, present here in Canada, in my humble opinion.
Citations in Italics
Who is on the Lord's Side? Politics and Gospel
In regard to different voting preference...
Cited
THREE BAD OPTIONS
The easiest way to explain the split vote is also the worst way: The professed Christians who voted for the wrong man did it because they were not true Christians. They said they were, but they were not, because if they had been, they would have voted for the other man, the man you did.
A second option is slightly better than the first: The Christians who voted for the wrong man were real believers, but in casting the vote they did, they put their own wishes above God's will.
A third way of seeing it is quite a bit better than the first two: The Christians who voted for the wrong man did not do it on purpose, but because they misread their Bibles or mistook what they heard on the radio for the leading of the Spirit. Vladimir Lenin called such people Useful Idiots, good people who can be fooled into doing bad things.
---
I reason there are useful idiots within Christianity as well. People are deceived because they are not properly being directed by the Holy Spirit, the scripture and the Church to hold to reasonable and true views and theology. May we prayerfully be better with God's help by grace through faith.
Cited
AN ASSESSMENT
What do we make of these options?
I think there's some truth in all of them. Not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' is a true disciple, and false disciples in life are likely to be false disciples in the voting booth.
It is also true that real disciples of Christ are not always good disciples. We all fail to follow Jesus in some parts of life, and, for some, it's the political part.
When it comes to the foolish and wrong things we do, we can never rule out ignorance and stupidity. We cast stupid and uninformed votes because we're stupid and uninformed!
A BETTER OPTION
While there is truth in all these options, they don't capture all the truth. There is another truth in the mix, and it's one we don't like to think about. It makes us uneasy because it seems to cast doubt on the clarity and sufficiency of God Word.
I'll put it to you as bluntly as I can: Most of what we want to know about politics is not in the Bible directly, and it cannot be justly inferred from the Bible!
What do you want to know about politics? I want to know who to vote for, what party to join, what causes to support or oppose, and how to set my priorities.
On all these topics, the Bible says nothing. I can read it till my eyes fall out, and I won't find the answers I'm looking for. Because they're not there.
---
Through my own studies, having come to similar conclusions, I would suppose there is some significant freedom of conscience for the Christian voter.
What the bible says about politics?
Cited
Firstly, the Bible teaches civil government is appointed by God, Romans 13:1.
Secondly, the Bible teaches us to submit to civil governments except when they command us to sin, Romans 13:5; Acts 5:29.
Thirdly, the Bible teaches us to honor our rulers and pay the taxes they levy on us, Romans 13:7.
Fourthly, the Bible commands us to pray for the salvation of our rulers, and for the wisdom to keep the peace and leave the church alone, I Peter 2:1-2.
Fifthly, the Bible tells us our rulers are not divine, our country is not the Kingdom of God, and that the good politics can achieve is never complete or permanent, or redemptive. Roman coins bore the image of Caesar and around his likeness, it said, 'Lord and Savior'. The Christians countered this false claim with a true one, saying no one but Jesus is Lord and Savior.
---
I agree with his assessment via Romans 13 and related verses. This can be seen in this website's archives. Including recently...
May 21 2019
Why not the Mosaic Law?
Cited
The Law of Moses is not a smorgasbord! We're not allowed to pick the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't. If you want to go the Mosaic route, you've got to go the whole way. And that's a dead end, or to quote Peter--
It is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers could bear.
---
Progressive revelation means that in Jesus Christ, the Church follows a new covenant, see Hebrews and Luke 22.
Interestingly...
The sermon demonstrates how Joseph's, Hebrew Bible politics would not be acceptable to most Westernized Christians today.
Why not the sermon on the mount?
Cited
The Sermon on the Mount is not a model for the state; its a model for the Kingdom of God, which our country is not, never has been , never will be, and is not supposed to be! As much as the Evangelical Left vilifies the Christian Right for its Legalism, the movements are exactly the same. Both apply the Scripture where it doesn't belong and where it won't work.
Cited
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with me on this. Some think the Bible addresses almost every political matter, and no one is more sure it does than the Theonomist or Reconstructionist. He believes the Jewish Republic is a model for all states under the Lordship of Christ. What God wanted the Jews to do then and there, He wants us to do here and now. Oh, there may be a few difference at the margin, but in substance, the Law of Moses, should be the law of the land.
---
I wrote on theonomy and my disagreements with it. I will post in comments section.
November 1 2008
N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).
Cited
Who is on the Lord's Side?
Christian liberty means, if the Bible does not command or forbid a thing, you are free to do what you want. For example, because the Bible neither commands nor forbids drinking, you're free to drink or not to drink. What you're not free to do, however, is drink without wisdom or brotherly love. What's true of drinking goes double for politics!
ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
Re: The link on theonomy
ReplyDeleteObeying God’s laws for the Christian should be a desire of one regenerated in Christ. Romans 10: 4 states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The law of God for Christians can be summed up from Matthew 22 and Mark 12 as we are to love God first and foremost and secondly we are to love our neighbours as ourselves.
My negative thoughts on theonomy arise in that we cannot as Christians expect to force our morality and ethics on non-believers who are the majority in Western society. When God’s Kingdom is culminated the citizens will be regenerated believers that will willingly through transformation follow God’s law by nature. If there is a plain literal millennium of one thousand years, or any amount of time, the rebellion that takes place after the period is over in Revelation 20: 7-9 shows me that although God’s millennium Kingdom will have God’s law, it will not have citizens forced to believe in God. I reason this as the persons Satan would bring together to oppose God would not be regenerate.
As well, even if hypothetically Biblical Christians were the majority in the Western World, I would advise all of you to be very careful concerning theonomy NOT ENFORCED DIRECTLY BY GOD/CHRIST. Would many of us really want Christians, that still possess sinful natures having the power of life and death over us? Consider this in light of theological disagreement. Would one want the state informing you what your theology should be? I would find this intellectually frightening as this type of theonomy would work hand in hand with theocracy. Potentially corrupted leadership at the top of the ‘Christian government’ could bring about persecution for those that disagree with the state, and at times these thinkers may be intellectually and Biblically closer to the truth.
I do not like the Western World as it is in its present overly secularized state. I would prefer to see a Biblical Christian Church with much more influence within Western society in order to maintain Christian morality and ethics, but not rule, in regard to law and order.