Christians and Politics

The relationship between Christianity and politics is a historically complex subject and a frequent source of disagreement throughout Church history, and in modern politics between the Christian right and Christian left.

The Christian right within evangelical Christianity have formed many of their political views on social issues such as abortionhomosexuality and public education from passages in the Old Testament.

Gabriel Garnica wrote, “To be honest, I was tempted to begin this article with an extensive review of how the Left, fresh off being blind-sided by its 2004 election loss, has successfully developed, instituted and, now, institutionalized an effective take-over of the mantle of religious legitimacy in this country. Under cunning and deceptive labels such as so-called social justice and the common good, these extremist forces have managed to seize control of most major Catholic colleges; spread the false doctrine that war, poverty, the environment, abortion, and family issues are all morally equivalent; and largely position themselves as the face of Christianity in this country through sophisticated and aggressive public relations and marketing efforts as well as the gleeful assistance of a sympathetic, secular media. In the interest of brevity and respect for the extensive evidence of the above claims in the literature, I will focus on how the Christian Left’s silence in a few key instances speaks volumes regarding its true allegiance.”

“Typically, the so-called Christian Left presents itself as a defender and its opponents as the foes of the poor, women, families, the environment, and human rights. Typically, these people only recall Scriptural passages where Christ helps victims of society but conveniently get off the Scripture bus right before Jesus tells people not to sin and reminds them to repent from sin. Typically, these people present themselves as victims as well, assailed by the “hate” of others pretending that everyone who opposes their arguments spews vulgarities and condemns them to hell and asking how it is not hypocritical to shame, judge, and attack others in the name of Christ. I agree with them that only God can judge them and that it is wrong to attack them for their views. However, I was wondering if the Christian Left could explain a few things to me.”

“Although they present themselves as defenders of human rights and protectors of women, why have they been silent regarding the horrific human rights atrocities of China’s one child rule as exposed by Chen Guangcheng as well as being silent about the atrocities committed against women in Islamic honor killings all over the world? Is it not an interesting coincidence that the Christian Left’s positions in the above cases exactly mirror the position of the secular Left, but with a few well-placed references to the Bible here and Christ there?”

“Although they assertively cite the Bible to justify their positions, proclaim themselves solid Christians, opponents of bullying, and proclaim their allegiance to Christ as their role model, this so-called Christian Left has not said a word against Dan Savage for his despicable and ruthless attack against the Bible and Christians in what many have described as a bullying attack itself. Could it be that the fact that Mr. Savage is a homosexual activist and extensively supported by the Left have anything to do with the Religious Left’s silence? How is it consistent to attack a Christian beauty pageant contestant for disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle yet remain silent when an Islamic radical calls for the murder of homosexuals?”

“Finally, the Christian Left extensively cite Christ to justify their arguments and present themselves as faithful followers of Christ. Despite this, this group enthusiastically and proudly embraces a leader who makes light of his attacks on Christianity and asked that the symbol “IHS,” a monogram of the name Jesus Christ, be removed from sight when he spoke at Georgetown back in 2009. Could it be, once again, that the Christian Left is demonstrating more allegiance to the “Left” part of its name than to the “Christian” part?”

“Matthew 7:16 reminds us that ” By their fruits ye shall know them.” We live in a world which increasingly marginalize, mocks, ignores, and persecutes core Christian beliefs and even Christ Himself. The study of logic teaches us that fallacious arguments contradict themselves and fall of their own weight . The examples cited above point to a number of areas where the Religious Left’s self-identification as Christian clearly takes a back seat to its self-identification as supporting the agenda of the “Left.””

  • You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
    (Matthew 7:16 ESV)

“If I call myself a vegetarian, but I eat meat when it suits me, am I a true vegetarian? Likewise, if I call myself a vegetarian, but I redefine “vegetarian” so I can eat meat when it suits me, am I a true vegetarian? If I am a vegetarian, but I honor someone who mocks vegetarians, what kind of vegetarian am I? Perhaps, in all of these cases, I am not really a vegetarian but someone who conveniently calls myself a vegetarian in some pathetic attempt to give my views some kind of legitimacy.”

“Matthew 6:24 tells us that we cannot serve two masters, and this is no different for those attempting to serve religious and political/social agendas. One cannot claim to be a Christian by citing only the half of the Bible that is convenient to one’s political and social agenda. One cannot claim to be a Christian and wink as Christianity and Christ are bashed. One cannot claim to defend women and human rights and wink when Chinese or Islamic women are brutalized through forced abortions or honor killings simply because those victims are not one’s preferred political flavor.”

  • “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

“Some might be tempted to call the Christian Left hypocrites in light of their inconsistencies and obvious selective outrage cited above, but to do so would be to underestimate this group. I propose the alternative assessment that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about these contradictions and selective causes once one accepts that the so-called Religious Left has always proclaimed their faith aloud for all to see, and that faith is promoting the Left’s agenda with a crucifix in one hand and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in the other. A simple study of history will show that Alinsky, the hero of all community organizers and those who love them, used religion to promote socialism and Marxism, declared that he favored hell over Heaven, and dedicated his work to Lucifer. Sure sounds like Christianity, doesn’t it?”

The fast of he matter is that the “Christian” left support euthanasiaabortion (partial birth abortion and post birth abortion) and want to rewrite the Constitution of the United States to give them special status as a minority groups and allow them to legally marry.

  • You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
    (Matthew 7:16-27 ESV)
  • He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'”
    (Matthew 13:24-30 ESV)

Any Christian who considers oneself redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ on Calvary yet supports the “Christian Left” and their platform is only deceiving themselves.

  • Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
    (2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV)

A question and issue that constantly comes up is if Jesus was a pacifist. According to Webster’s dictionary, a pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose, often accompanied by the refusal to bear arms by reason of conscience or religious conviction.

I am not God, so I cannot judge them. However, their fruits judge them. I doubt anyone in this movement truly knows Jesus Christ.

However, it’s not to late. It is written, “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14 ESV)

We need to sincerely repent, pray and turn to God with all our hearts. This may be our final warning. Time is getting very short.

Advertisements

Following the Leader

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'” The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”
(Matthew 21:1-11 ESV)

Many Christians celebrate this day as Palm Sunday, although there is overwhelming evidence that this event did not occur on a Sunday.

Before Jesus’ arrest (via betrayal by Judas Iscariot) trial and subsequent crucifixion He said, “”O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'” (Matthew 23:37-39 ESV).

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD.
(Psalm 118:26 ESV)

This is a very important study, considering we are only days away from the United States Presidential Election (2012).

Many of the The Jewish people welcomed Jesus Christ into Jerusalem as their promised Messiah,

The Scribes, Pharisees (except Nicodemous), Sadducees and Sanhedrin would have nothing to do with what they considered heretical and blasphemous.The Pharisees and Sanhedrin were also involved in legal matters before the court, including recommendations to Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate regarding capital punishment.

The lesson of this story is that one should not follow the crowd. The vast Jewish people had accepted Him as the Messiah. Yet political pressure ad the leadership of the church found him guilty of heresy and blasphemy and He was put to death. The same principals rule our world today. Politicians, elected officials, appointed officials and police officers routinely abuse their position of trust to enforce the law as see they fit. So much for the rule of law.

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD.
(Psalm 118:26 ESV)

No Religious Test

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, Paragraph 3, and states that:”The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

A variety of Test Acts were instituted in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their main purpose was to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England from holding government office, notably Catholics and Dissenters (Protestants). Government officials were required to swear oaths, such as the Oath of Supremacy, that the Monarch of England was the head of the Church and that they possessed no other foreign loyalties, such as to the Pope. Later acts required officials to disavow transubstantiation and the veneration of saints.

Many colonists of the Thirteen Colonies had left England in part to gain a measure of religious freedom. With the royal government’s religious favoritism fresh in their memory, the Founders sought to prevent the return of the Test Acts by adding this clause to the Constitution.

Recently, Willard Mitt Romney has received the nomination from the Republican Party as our candidate for the President of the United States of America.

Robert Jeffress, the evangelical pastor of First Baptist Church Dallas, said Mitt Romney is not a Christian and Mormonism is a cult, after introducing Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit Friday.

Whether one believes that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians, this is a moot point under the United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3.

I describe myself as a Messianic Jew. However, you can rest assured that I will vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan come election day. There are many pastors urging Evangelical Christians to not vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. This is very foolish. A vote for Barack Hussein Obama II and Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr. is a vote against Christian and Jewish fundamentals. A vote for a third-party candidate or abstaining from voting is also a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

This is far from the first time a presidential candidate has been forced to defend his religion. John F. Kennedy was scrutinized for being a Roman Catholic. In 1960 he made the following speech.

Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.

I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views — in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I’d tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t vote for a candidate based on their religious beliefs. Don’t mistake that freedom for approval.  It is one thing to have the right to reject a candidate for their religious beliefs, it is another thing to do so.  It is sometimes helpful to focus not on the beliefs themselves, but the implications they have for how that person will govern.  How is a creationist likely to look upon federal spending on science, for example?  How about education? Beware those who would use the Constitution to protect themselves, while ignoring the provisions that protect you, the voter.  The Constitution is, afterall, an enormous compromise between competing interests.  Candidates who ignore portions of that compromise are a risk to the future of this country.

I would suggest that Christians look at all the candidates and examine their positions before making any decision. I would not suggest to anyone not to vote for a candidate because he was Mormon.

I would also look at a candidate’s stances on the issues more than anything else. I have heard a couple of so-called evangelical Christians say that they are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I cannot understand for the life of me how an evangelical could have that stance, and I could not vote for that person.