Politics are Not Difficult for a Christian

- by The Christian Left (Portland, Oregon)

You know, politics (especially for a Christian) really are not difficult.

Which party wants to expand health care, food, education and transportation to even the poorest among us? And, which party opposes all that; yet supports further tax cuts for the wealthy?

Does anyone really buy the conservative argument that by reducing health care, food, education and transportation -- especially to the poorest among us -- and cutting taxes further for the wealthy so that these folks who are already the wealthiest people the world has ever known will be even wealthier -- that doing those things will be good for us all. Give me a break, that's BS.

Politics are easy once you relax and look at the big picture.

TCL's Morning Message:

If you mistreat the poor, you insult your Creator; if you are kind to them, you show him respect.

- Proverbs 14:31 (CEV)

Comments for Politics are not Difficult for a Christian:

Unfortunately is not that Easy -- by Tim Ricard

Unfortunately is not that easy. Which party supports continuous wars, both. Which parties supports using public funds to achieve political favors. Which parties destroy families with unnecessary laws and use of force: both. On the other hand, which party supports limiting religious and other free speech.

Which party is so materialistic that they only care for the material needs, and ignore the spiritual and relational needs of the poor? Which party pits races against each other in the political arena? Conservatives certainly have issues, but so do liberals.

Make an Equivalency Argument -- by Mo

Tim -- I appreciate your comments and they are worthy of consideration. However, your list of "issues" is rather vague, debatable, and in the end gives 0 justification for supporting the GOP over the Dems.

The issues I listed are big, clear, and obvious. It seems you are stretching to make an equivalency argument that is weak.

Which Party Wants to Expand Health Care -- by Tim Ricard

My issue is that I see the spiritual needs of the poor as just as relievent as their material needs. The state can certain provide for spiritual needs, but the Dems often try to ignore and legislate against the spiritual needs of the poor. Both are necessary.

Conceivibly, the gov can provide material relief and the church spiritual, but that negates your entire Gospel and state argument. The gospel should be unified, not divided. That is the issue, seculization is inconsistant with our faith. I do not have the answers, only frustration and confusion at this point. Both parties threaten my faith, and controdict my notations of the gospel.

The key issue I have with "Which party wants to expand health care, food, education and transportation to even the poorest among us?" is that although the ends are Christian, moral, and right. What about the means? Is a Christian really justified to support the forced restribution of wealth, I simply do not know. May be we are, but that should be part of the concideration. Jesus did not take wealth of the rich man in Mark 10:17-31, nor did Paul even demand that we act as Robinhood.

In the end, I am still in the process of trying to determine my thoughts on the process. (Note I am somewhat playing a devil's avocate here to work out both sides of the issue.) Thank you for allowing me to use your post to contemplate the issues.

Kingdom of God should be Promoted and Expanded -- by Mo

Good. your primary concern seems to be about how we can have this idea that the Kingdom of God should be promoted and expanded; is both spiritual and physical -- AND still consistent with the separation of church and state.

But, you just make it harder than it needs to be. The question Gospel Politics addresses is what choice each individual should make about their politics. We need not be absolutist and say either the church or state must do it all, physical and spiritual, that's just not a problem. Christians should support churches and "be" churches that do what they can to advance the Kingdom, both spiritually and physically. Christians should also support and develop government policies that are consistent with Kingdom values. It's really simple actually.

Kingdom values should be promoted by individual Christians in all aspects of their lives -- both their church lives and their political lives.

The truth is that, at least in this day and age, caring for the least of these requires community/government support. It's as simple as that. A political philosophy (like Ayn Rand's) that fails to acknowledge that is, in practice and reality, unChristian because it leaves the poor to suffer and weakens the community.

How I Can Support Secularism -- by Tim Ricard

Now that I agree with your general argument, I am still in a pickle (ironically the opposite of 24 hours ago). I cannot see how I can support secularism now.

I have come to the conclusion that as the capitalists argue that the free market allows for freedom of association, secularists argue for freedom of conscience, both leave our communities poor and lacking in basic needs, the former material and the latter spiritual.

If you feed a man material food while neglecting spiritual food, he is never fully satisfied. Thus I simply cannot support a system that does not fulfill the spiritual needs of its citizens, as well as their material needs.

Support a Theocracy -- by Mo

So, you tentatively support a theocracy? I don't think that's a good idea either. I think our political system is fine -- if we could just get most people to promote Christian values... I dunno, will ponder.

Spiritual Needs -- by Tim Ricard

I can trust a corrupt government to provide material needs, but should I trust it to provide spiritual needs. But unfortunately government provided social service can interfer with secularism / freedom of religion (http://nation.foxnews.com/prayer/2012/10/19/elderly-widow-told-not-pray-public-housing-complex).

I realize it is from Fox (not the most trust worthy source, but it is a common issue I have see in other articles, this was just in my news feed). As the government provides services to those who are in need, and some of those who are in need have spiritual needs, secularism can get in the way.

Forced Distribution of Wealth? -- by Marsley Holderman

If you believe that you may want to ask yourself a huge question? Where did they get that wealth?

Research how they accumulated the majority of the wealth in this country. I know two ways right off the bat.

First are their tax breaks they get for being wealthy. That is a FACT.

Secondly is making it off the backs of people working for 50 cents a day in Thailand, Vietnam.

The middle class has taken hit after hit for decades now. So redistributed wealth? I am not against successful companies. I am against greed.

Well put Marsley -- by Mo

Well put Marsley. Here's a relevant article http://www.gospelpolitics.com/economic-inequality-united-states.html