The Rise of the Political Christian

[Chuck Naill]

Evangel is good news and to evangelize is to spread that good news.

You calling EOC an evangelist?

I’m responding to what you posted regarding changing peoples minds.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?

[kazoolaw]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?

Not yet.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?

Not yet.

Yet?

Or, if you would rather not, saying so seems appropriate.

[kazoolaw]

Not now, but soon.

[Chuck Naill]

What did Jesus teach?

[kazoolaw]

TS-

I'll go back to Post 153 and begin there, responding in pieces rather than trying to respond to all your points in one post.

You and I disagree on what the Bible is. I'll not address your view at this point. Your parenthetical comment at the end of the first paragraph, " (this is when, in my view, humans become intoxicated with their perceived "divine purpose" and sense of "special selection" from God, and then abuse other humans)" I have thoughts about. nothing It is not only Christians wyho are self-righteous, believe that they have a higher purpose, think they are specially selected to accomplish a particular goal, or are abusive. If I recall correctly, there was a magazine cover touting a politician as "The Second Coming," and asking if he was "God the Father or God the Son." There nothing about being a Christian which makes one perfect, blameless, sinless if you will. No one is blameless. There is something particularly appalling, and indefensible, I agree, with those whose actions actually contradict the avowed justification for their actions.

My comment here as actually about your second paragraph, quoting Lauren Boebart about the end times, and her call for political action as a result. We, and she, can debate eschatology at another time. I would think we can agree that people should act as Christians if they're Christians, or in accordance with their morals, but I think it a mistake to think that she knows what God's plan for America is in a political sense, or when the world will end. When I said politics is not religion I meant that it is not a substitute for God, nor is it the means to spiritual improvement. I find no party platform in Jesus' teachings. There is nothing I've found that indicates that a political party is supposed to take precedence following God's commands. While there may be an overlap between political and religious issues, politics is not a substitute for God.

This conversation may bleed over into discussing what is and what is not the establishment of religion, which is a conversation for another day.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ll say that disciples should act like disciples.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Thanks, kazoo. Yes, you had already said that you and I were in agreement on rogue righteousness.

It's #154 (what you call here my "other comments") that I have been "patiently" waiting for (the bolded part above). You had asked me to highlight what I found "abusive" about the Bible's depictions of relationships, and I wrote about this at length in response to your question put to me. It's that reply that I am still waiting for. That was the core of the matter for me, and it was specifically the matter that you asked me to illustrate.

[kazoolaw]

"Patiently" waiting.

[Chuck Naill]

From a summary of Charles Colson's book:

"Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is also a worldview that not only answers life's basic questions--Where did we come from, and who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to fix it?--but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers. How Now Shall We Live? gives Christians the understanding, the confidence, and the tools to confront the world's bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary culture: family, education, ethics, work, law, politics, science, art, music. This book will change every Christian who reads it. It will change the church in the new millennium."

This came after Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live, The Rise and Fall of Western Thought and Culture".

Both books calls for the politicization of Christians and the Evangelicals have been fed this mentality sine the 1970's. The idea that Schaeffer uses the word "should" in the title speaks to his arrogance.

Francis son Frank Schaeffer left the Republican party.

"On October 10, 2008, a public letter to Senator John McCain and Sarah Palin from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper.[12] The letter contained an impassioned plea for McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful and prejudiced tone of the Republican Party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence. "If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters... history will hold you responsible for all that follows."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer

The younger Schaeffer's comments were prophetical, but I doubt any Evangelical would agree today.

[TSherbs]

"Patiently" waiting.

You did write that 32 days ago.

And you did ask me in a different place what Biblical passages I was reflecting on.

So, for this case, it is the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Again, please tell me if you actually aren't interested in a conversation on this. I am beginning to think that you are not. But, you seem to suggest...maybe. could you make this clear for me?

[Chuck Naill]

I've been camped out on Jesus' words to love your neighbor as you love yourself of a few years as not just a concept but a behavior to allow to permeate my actions. Whether I am successful on a daily basis, it is non-the-less a thought that I cannot escape.

At a time when Evangelicals have become supporters, more or less, of isolationists and authoritarians, I am left asking, do these folks not recall or have they never been taught what Jesus said?

I was introduced to W.E.B Du Bois's biography of John Brown. This is from an op-ed today.
"Du Bois’s entry is at once a typical biography — it goes into some detail about Brown’s childhood, his upbringing and his moral development, including a depiction of the scene that made Brown, at a young age, an ardent opponent of slavery — and an exercise in social analysis.

Du Bois sums up Brown’s views in his conclusion. “John Brown loved his neighbor as himself,” writes Du Bois. “He could not endure therefore to see his neighbor poor, unfortunate or oppressed.” Brown’s sympathy with the least advantaged was strengthened by his Christianity and influenced by the “social doctrines of the French Revolution with its emphasis on freedom and power in political life.”

https://www.nytimes.com/column/jamelle-bouie

[kazoolaw]

TS-
Sorry for the unanticipated delay.
I will get back to you on this.

[kazoolaw]

Additionally, there are psychological forms of abusive manipulation, as in the treatment of Abraham and Isaac by God in the famous near-sacrifice scene. Abraham lies to his son (only son, to boot), has to bind him to the wood of the altar (the suggestion is that Isaac is resisting, naturally), and then proceeds to murder his son in pagan fashion all because God told him to do this. The story has Abraham follow God's wishes here without comment and without objection. There are some who say that Abraham knew that God would never let him follow through (the lamb reference), but this line makes clear that Abraham intended to kill the boy: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." The intent and purpose of the action is clear, and the angel must quickly step in to stop him! Even if God never intended physical harm to come to the son, Abraham did, and God played this "test" as a the ultimate power play of a gang-leader or dictator: just how far will you go to show your fealty to me and subservience to my command. The psychological abusive trauma of such a scenario is obscene. And, for me, there is no "well, the ends justify the means" (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel). The scene is sick in its manipulative power play between a God (who already knows the outcome, right?) and the humans mindlessly following orders and trying to commit murder within a family (breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and a child).

There are so many examples, Kaz, and you must already be familiar with them. The objection to these is not new and I am no original thinker in decrying them.

Let’s begin with what is, and what is not, within the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, found in Genesis chapter 22.
Abraham did not “murder his son in pagan fashion.” As you recognize, Abraham stopped short, not killing him at all. Child sacrifice was not uncommon at the time; this is a story of child sacrifice rejected. Many times in the Old Testament God denounces the sacrifice of children to idols.
Isaac was bound, but there is nothing to suggest that he “had” to be bound to force his compliance. The traditional sacrificial lamb was bound, front and back legs on each side tied together. As you read, God did provide the ram as sacrifice.
This is Abraham’s story of being tested, and of his faith. It is important to understand that this is the point of the story from the beginning. 22:1 Recall that Isaac was Abraham’s son with Sara, who was barren for so many years. We are given to understand that Isaac was a special, a miracle child. Abraham tells the men who came with them that “…we will worship and return to you.” Abraham and Isaac did return. 22:5. In verse 8 Abraham says that God will provide the lamb. God did. 22:13. What is not in the account is Isaac’s reaction.
The analogy to a gang leader falls short. We’re familiar now with the stories of “making his bones” killing to be admitted into a gang, the Mafia. Abraham’s story is recorded because he did not kill Isaac, no one was murdered. Nothing suggests mindless obedience. Rather, there is a demonstration of deep faith in God’s provision. As the story continues, God declares that Abraham will be blessed, and that Isaac’s descendants will multiply greatly because of Abraham’s obedience.
The story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus, who many times is described as a Lamb, the One whose death was a sacrifice for the sin of us all.
It is a curious thing to me that Isaac coming back down from the altar, alive, is described as "breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and child" and the sacrifice of six million is a parents' right.

[Chuck Naill]

When my son was young, the idea of putting him on an alter and killing him was never anything I would have done, and I would have rather died myself than do so. Also, I never tested my son or would have tested him to see if he had faith in me. I am okay with saying, not my will, but thine be done if I understand the need or benefit to myself, but not another.

Now let's discuss the concept of sin. The word means to miss the mark of God's holiness. I can well accept that I am not without sin or missing the standard of holiness but can I do otherwise through no fault of my own. When my children didn't tell the truth I was not surprised, and I was always willing to forgive them. I didn't expect perfection because I knew they couldn't help it.

I would never send them to an eternal torment because they didn't apologize or repent.

Ross Campbell wrote a book about how to really love your child. He advocated for unconditional love, active listening, and making eye contact. How would a holy god not do the same? Only a cruel god would expect me to figure it out.


I recognize this is a departure from Evangelical teachings. That said, these are the teachings that cause us to question what we believe. What I have never questioned is to treat others as I would want them to treat me or to love my neighbors as I love myself.

[kazoolaw]

Post 175: Sorry sixty, not six, million.

[Joincte1993]

The rise of the political Christian is not only about the increase in the number of Christians who have become politically active, but also about the fact that they are now becoming increasingly influential in politics. In the past, Christianity was seen as a religion that had no place in politics, but today we find many politicians who are openly religious. Politicians who are Christian tend to be more conservative than those who are not. However, some Christians may be liberal or even socialist. Visit The site

[dneal]

Spam reported.

[TSherbs]

Additionally, there are psychological forms of abusive manipulation, as in the treatment of Abraham and Isaac by God in the famous near-sacrifice scene. Abraham lies to his son (only son, to boot), has to bind him to the wood of the altar (the suggestion is that Isaac is resisting, naturally), and then proceeds to murder his son in pagan fashion all because God told him to do this. The story has Abraham follow God's wishes here without comment and without objection. There are some who say that Abraham knew that God would never let him follow through (the lamb reference), but this line makes clear that Abraham intended to kill the boy: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." The intent and purpose of the action is clear, and the angel must quickly step in to stop him! Even if God never intended physical harm to come to the son, Abraham did, and God played this "test" as a the ultimate power play of a gang-leader or dictator: just how far will you go to show your fealty to me and subservience to my command. The psychological abusive trauma of such a scenario is obscene. And, for me, there is no "well, the ends justify the means" (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel). The scene is sick in its manipulative power play between a God (who already knows the outcome, right?) and the humans mindlessly following orders and trying to commit murder within a family (breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and a child).

There are so many examples, Kaz, and you must already be familiar with them. The objection to these is not new and I am no original thinker in decrying them.

Let’s begin with what is, and what is not, within the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, found in Genesis chapter 22.
Abraham did not “murder his son in pagan fashion.” As you recognize, Abraham stopped short, not killing him at all. Child sacrifice was not uncommon at the time; this is a story of child sacrifice rejected. Many times in the Old Testament God denounces the sacrifice of children to idols.
Isaac was bound, but there is nothing to suggest that he “had” to be bound to force his compliance. The traditional sacrificial lamb was bound, front and back legs on each side tied together. As you read, God did provide the ram as sacrifice.
This is Abraham’s story of being tested, and of his faith. It is important to understand that this is the point of the story from the beginning. 22:1 Recall that Isaac was Abraham’s son with Sara, who was barren for so many years. We are given to understand that Isaac was a special, a miracle child. Abraham tells the men who came with them that “…we will worship and return to you.” Abraham and Isaac did return. 22:5. In verse 8 Abraham says that God will provide the lamb. God did. 22:13. What is not in the account is Isaac’s reaction.
The analogy to a gang leader falls short. We’re familiar now with the stories of “making his bones” killing to be admitted into a gang, the Mafia. Abraham’s story is recorded because he did not kill Isaac, no one was murdered. Nothing suggests mindless obedience. Rather, there is a demonstration of deep faith in God’s provision. As the story continues, God declares that Abraham will be blessed, and that Isaac’s descendants will multiply greatly because of Abraham’s obedience.
The story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus, who many times is described as a Lamb, the One whose death was a sacrifice for the sin of us all.
It is a curious thing to me that Isaac coming back down from the altar, alive, is described as "breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and child" and the sacrifice of six million is a parents' right.

Thanks, Kaz.

Everyone acknowledges that this is a test of faith, including me (see above). My point, which you asked me to elaborate on, is that this test is an abusive one because of the unequal power dynamic and the request of a father that he put his own son to death by the sword simply as a test of faith. To pass the test, Abraham must be willing to kill his own son simply to appease a god. (I call this act "pagan" because human sacrifice has roots far back in pre-Judeo history, and it is certainly no longer condoned by the Christian community). I am calling this request (based on an unequal power dynamic and no reference to any hesitation on the part of Abraham) "abusive" because that is exactly what we would call it today if it were to continue to happen, whether tested in this manner by a "god" or by another human (we would probably call it other names, too). Can you speak more directly to this point of the request to kill a child to please a figure of authority? Is your point that if one perceives that one's "god" is making this request, that the request is not abusive in nature of the dynamic? Is there something that makes the request perceived from a god different from the same request made from a human? Or is your point simply that human sacrifice was more common then, so for a father to be tested in this manner would not be then considered abusive (and the morality of the act should not be judged by anachronistic mores)?