One of the most important lessons that the Lord has taught me through the years is that Christianity is not a political viewpoint. Christianity is not like Islam or Roman Catholicism or any other religion of man. The religion of man is force, but true religion is grace.
I agree, but I'm not sure how, or even if, this answers my question.
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to put all of these things together right now...and I definitely don't have all the answers...
Its something I pray through all the time. I don't have any good answers either. Then again, maybe I already know the answer and just don't want to accept it. The logical answer is very simple: that these statist "Christians" are no better than homosexuals or adulterers. If that's wrong, I want to know why. If that's right, I want to know where the true churches are.
But I think one of the important things, in my thinking, is to emphasize what the apostles emphasized. Paul didn't have a blueprint for social action. He didn't go around fomenting rebellions and revolutions. He even seemed to be COMPLIMENTARY toward the murderous Roman government that was torturing and murdering Christians (and eventually Paul himself). Most "Christians" mistake Paul's complimentary nature for an endorsement of their murderous system.
Just to throw this in here: Do you think the American Revolution was morally wrong? Why or why not?
The position that I currently take on the use of force (Which may be wrong... I'd be curious what your take on my viewpoint is... most Christians that I know are so hypocritical on this point because of their support for The State that they can't really give any good answers to this) is that violence is only acceptable for defense or for proportional punishment for a violent act. Thus, it is justifiable to put a murderer to death and... logically, this is justified even if that murderer creates The State to protect himself from responsibility (Genesis 9:6.) Sometimes its not possible to bring murderers to justice, but that practical impossibility is a pragmatic prohibition, not a moral one.
What I do not understand is how the average Christian on the street would say that any form of extra-governmental "vigilante" justice is inherently wrong, yet they are OK with using violence against people for actions that don't even have a victim (Such as drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, etc.) and with wars that kill all sorts of people that are not aggressors (Iraq, Vietnam, WWII, etc.) and yet they'd say if a cop murders someone in cold blood and the government refuses to prosecute him (Because they protect their own) it would be wrong to do anything to bring this man to justice.
I'm curious what your take on all of this is, because... as I said, most Christians that I know are too ingrained with the idea that The State has some moral right to exist that they're not intellectually capable of thinking at that kind of a logical level. If you don't know, that's OK too. I might be wrong.
But the most important thing to understand is that Paul was focused on the gospel of imputed righteousness alone. He was focused on the Lord and on salvation, which is what a true Christian is always focused on. Politics and every worldly philosophy is going to be cast into Hell in the end.
On the one hand, I obviously agree with this. The fact that our country is being destroyed by oppressive government is no excuse for forgetting the gospel (And I tell people about the gospel whenever I can... BTW... I try to avoid these types of political debates with unbelievers IRL because I know its not going to get anywhere if they don't happen to like liberty anyway for some reason). On the other hand, I don't see how you can know how oppressive our government is and not at least try to do something about it.
You can spot false gospels like Romanism and Reconstructionism because they take the focus away from imputed righteousness and focus on social action and worldly concerns.
Is Reconstructionism actually a gospel viewpoint? I thought it was a political viewpoint. I know Romanism has (Mostly statist) political implications as well, but does Reconstructionism inherently get the gospel wrong? (I shouldn't have to say this... but just in case... I obviously do not believe in reconstructionism.
This is not to say that the gospel and Christianity does not have a marked decentralizing effect on cultures. That much is clear from the Reformation and the early American experiment. But it's to say that Christianity is focused on something other than politics or political action. Social change is only a secondary effect of the gospel being believed by the people.
Yes, I agree. But I could say the same thing about the moral rejection of homosexuality and adultery. Doesn't mean we just sit there and let our brothers and sisters in Christ be deceived.
