theophilus40 wrote:It is possible to expend a lot of energy without accomplishing anything useful. Paul warned against such useless efforts in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
When a boxer gets into the ring he needs to be able to hit hard and fast if he is to have any chance of winning. But he also needs one other thing: the ability to aim his blows so that they connect with the person he is fighting. If he swings and misses he not only wastes the energy he put into the blow but he becomes vulnerable to his opponent’s counterattack.
Christians are engaged in a spiritual battle against the forces of evil and sometimes our fighting is merely beating the air because we don’t choose our targets wisely. This is often true in our political activities.
Hang on just a minute. Paul was clearly using a Greek cultural idea (like the sport of boxing) to illustrate self-control as to avoid the potential for hypocrisy after preaching his message. Here boxing in the air refers to talking a good talk without backing it up with substance in your personal life. At least that's the immediate message I get upon reading this passage.
The moment you mention "political activities," I got a big red flag. Where did this come from? Paul was not talking about politics in this section or in the majority of his teachings, and neither did Jesus. Jesus said give to Cesar what is Caesar's. Paul told Christians to pray for their kings in power and that government existed because God allowed it as a tool to punish evildoers.
There was not much democracy back then. Political activism is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is the idea of a theocratic system, or a religious government. Jesus' Kingdom was "not of this earth."
theophilus40 wrote:The United States was founded by people who believed the Bible and tried to follow its teachings. There are many expressions of this belief in our public life. The pledge of allegiance contains the words “under God�. Our national motto, “In God we trust�, is printed on our money. The ten commandments are displayed in many public buildings. Crosses and nativity scenes are often found on public property.
Not quite. The majority of our Founding Fathers were Christian Deists and Masons. Their political philosophy borrowed heavily from European Atheists and non-religious Theists.
While they did not believe that the Bible was infallible and inerrant (Thomas Jefferson wrote his own New Testament without miracles involved), some did believe that the morals it taught were good. Ben Franklin, a non-Christian Deist, argued that Christianity was a good facilitator of morals.
And yes, "God" and language similar to that was often used in political documents, but they weren't talking about the Baptist concept of God. They weren't trying to prop up a State religion; that's precisely what they were trying to avoid.
"In God We Trust" was not our nation's motto until the height of the Cold War. It was on our coins in the late 19th century, and on our dollars in the late 50s. "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance was also added during the Cold War, as to differentiate our nation from the "evil, godless, Communists." That's what happens when you allow religion to frame politics as a battle of "good versus evil."
And putting the Ten Commandments in public schools and courts is unconstitutional because it essentially is the state promoting religion. You wouldn't want the pillars of Islam in a courthouse would you?
The ADL argues that it's unconstitutional, and many Jewish and non-Christian parents don't want their children to be subjected to class led Christian prayer. Kids can pray in school all they want, but it's not the job of state employees to indoctrinate and convert.
theophilus40 wrote:Belief in the Bible no longer plays a prominent role in our society and as a result there is pressure to eliminate these public expressions of faith. The first reaction of many Christians to this is to fight to retain these symbols. But is this really the most effective response? The attempt to remove Biblical symbolism is the result of the adverse changes that have taken place in our country and not the cause. If we are not careful we can waste a lot of energy treating the symptoms of our problems while doing nothing to correct the cause.
Define belief? Do you mean Biblical literalism or just Christianity in general? In any case I don't oppose public expressions of faith, as that is security protected by our first amendment. I am not so much in favor of religious symbolism on government property. That's a different matter entirely.
theophilus40 wrote:Instead of trying to preserve these symbols we should put our efforts into teaching the Bible and promoting belief in the truths that these symbols represent. If the ten commandments are written on people’s hearts it won’t matter whether they are written on our courthouse walls. Helping people understand the message of salvation that the cross represents is more important than having the right to place physical crosses on public property.
In this case I agree with you. Religious laws should be a part of your own personal ethos if that is what you practice, and the obvious should not be inscribed on a wall, as to promote one's religion. I don't have to believe in God or in Christianity to know that it is wrong to murder. That should be a no-brainer. Now, I don't need to have a plaque inside of courts that proclaims "One need not believe to observe moral behavior," because that would essentially be a promotion of a non-theist ethic, which is not the job of a secular State.
theophilus40 wrote:This doesn’t mean that we should never become involved in political activity. We should promote good legislation such as that which protects the lives of the unborn and promotes Biblical standards of marriage. But even in these areas enacting good laws shouldn’t be our primary goal. Our primary responsibility is to teach what the Bible says about these subjects. Changing hearts is more important than changing laws.
I firmly believe that all citizens should be active in politics and more knowledgeable and willing to promote their causes.
However, I do not support causes which infringe upon the rights of others. Causes which ban alcohol to promote good behavior fail because the law does not create behavior; "good" behavior comes from within. Causes that federally ban gay marriage, something seen as evil and sinful by many Christians do not make gay marriage go away. Causes that attempt to ban other religion do not make the country more Christian, but instead all infringe upon human rights and equality under the law.
Abortion is a unique issue, as many disagree on the matter. I happen to be pro-life but I don't believe life begins the second sperm touch the egg. If I thought that at that moment it was a U.S. citizen, then helping a young woman by giving her hormone injections to prevent pregnancy would be considered murder. And quite frankly, I think that's insane. Similarly I think it's insane to classify a fully functioning several month old fetus "non-human" 8 minutes before it leaves its mother's womb, yet "human" the second it comes out of the mother.
I also think contraception would prevent a lot of unnecessary abortions in the first place. Unfortunately, many Catholics and other conservatives believe that contraception (which prevents disease and abortions) somehow promotes promiscuous behavior; and any legislation promoting it would be an "attack on their faith," even though all of them can choose not to use it.
The same logic applies to the drug war, prostitution, etc. I'm a virgin who's never done drugs, and only had 2 glasses of wine and a few beers his entire life. Yet, I support people's freedom to live as they want. I don't want those things to be banned because I understand that "morality" or whatever you call it, cannot be created via the courts. And in the end, such things infringe upon freedoms.
So in that way, I can agree with you.
theophilus40 wrote:Christians should exercise all the rights and fulfill all the responsibilities of citizenship. But we have an even more important responsibility that other citizens don’t share. We are commanded to pray for our country and its leaders.
I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior.
1 Timothy 2:1-3 ESV
If we obey God by making prayer our first priority we can then trust that he will show us what else we wants us to do and we won’t waste time and effort on activities that don’t produce lasting results.
But prayer doesn't vote, and it doesn't make leaders more competent. And like James said, prayer isn't enough when action is called for. You still have to vote and Christians who run for office still have to be aware of current events. The electorate will not elect someone like Perry who doesn't know anything, even though he still champions Baptist values.
They won't even vote for someone who has values (Gingrich), but as long as he "champions them," that's the "important" thing.
