Second death of religious politics

The resignation of religious broadcaster Pat Robertson as president and board member of the Christian Coalition pulls the plug on a comatose religious-political body that effectively died more than a decade ago. The meltdown marks the second time in a century (the first being Prohibition) when an attempted marriage between church and state failed both institutions.

I am so ashamed of Cal Thomas over this. (and that stupid book he cowrote too.)

The meltdown marks the second time in a century (the first being Prohibition) when an attempted marriage between church and state failed both institutions What about the civil rights movement? That began in the churches. Will Thomas condemn that too? (for the record, the liberal anti- constitution stuff done in the name of civil rights should be condemned, I'm talking about the effort to overturn jim crow, and to let people vote, etc stuff.)

Things might have been better if, instead of sending money to the national headquarters of religious leaders and pledging allegiance to their preferred politicians, conservative Christians had been busy feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, caring for widows and orphans and — most notably absent from the movement — loving their enemies.

Conservative Christians have always given to those in need. We give far more than the so-called liberal Christians or non religious. Conservative Christians have also emphasised the gospel. (It's one of the reasons why liberals hate us. "We are so judgemental.") It is shameful that Thomas should act like the conservative Christians havn't been doing that. Conservative Christians probably spend a couple billion dollars a year on missions and charities(worldwide). Yet Thomas has the nerve to denounce them because they will spend a couple of million on the christian coalition and Right to life groups. Did the entire pro-life/religious right's budget ever go over 10 million?? Does Thomas think that Christians will be more motivated to give support to crisis pregnancy centers, if the Church stops denouncing abortion, and just accepts it as a matter of law.

Thomas says that we should give to Caesar what is due(to paraphase Jesus), But he forgets that in America Everyone is Caesar because gov't power comes from the people. And the people are responsible for the it's actions. If the Gov't acts in an immoral and unjust manner like it did with the jim crow laws, or it does with abortion, etc. It is the duty of those with Power(the people) to see that justice is wins out.

The sad truth of the matter is that the Conservative Christians have largely failed to get involved in politics. The majority do not support moral causes, or even vote for moral issue. Rather than point out the failure of the leadership, to reach these people. Thomas would rather abandon the effort entirely. Could it be because Thomas was a leader in the old moral majority? And rather than saying that he and other weren't up to the job. It's easier to condemn the entire movement.

Proof, if proof was needed, that even wise men can occasionally babble and rave with the best of them.

So let's look at this historically. The issue of education and academics in general came up. The church said, "You know, we'll just be right over here in case you need us, in church, holding hands and praying and singing hymns." The world responding cheerily, "Great! We'll take it from here!" And darned if they didn't, after their inimitable and destructive fashion.

And likewise, in the areas of "hard" sciences, the church said, "You know, we'll just be right over here in case you need us, in church, holding hands and praying and singing hymns." The world responding cheerily, "Great! We'll take it from here!" And darned if they didn't, after their inimitable, hit-and-miss, destructive fashion.

And the issue of media and culture came up. Once again the church said, "You know, we'll just be right over here in case you need us, in church, holding hands and praying and singing hymns." The world responding cheerily, "Great! We'll take it from here!" And darned if they didn't, after their inimitable and destructive fashion.

And on and on.

But now, Cal assures is, in the area of politics, if the church will just say, "You know, we'll just be right over here in case you need us, in church, holding hands and praying and singing hymns," the world will just snap into line, eventually, all by istelf. This time. For sure.

Come on, Cal. I know you know the line from Santayana. And I know you've read Proverbs.

Wise up.

Dan
Biblical Christianity message board

What really bugs me about his holier than thou attitude is that it is a actually a denial of Christ's authority. In our society "giving Caesar his due" at an absolute minimum requires good citizenship(involvement in the political process, voting to advance moral causes, lobbying leaders, etc). You simply cannot obey Christ's command and be passive toward government. Just like you cannot be passive about Christ's Commands regarding evangelism and charity. And the simplist way to be a good citizen is to be organized. If I cannot personally get involved, at least i can support those who will do good work in the political arena, just like I can support those who do good work in missions or charity.

Right. Plus there are a number of other complementary angles.

Like the things that we know, with a basis in the authority of God, that our pagan neighbors do not know. For instance, you know and I know that our pagan neighbor does not know whether homosexuality is the moral equivalent of marriage. But we do know. He doesn't know whether it is moral or not to confiscate A's wages to care for B's laziness. But we do know. He doesn't know whether an unborn child is a human person or not. But we do know.

Now, knowing as we do, should we withhold our knowledge, and leave him (and our society) not only in the dark, but increasingly under the judgment of God?

Analogy. One midnight, there was a knock at the door of my "manse." On the doorstep was a couple of whom the husband had announced that he was about to kill himself.

Was that the time to preach the Gospel to them? And if he didn't become a Christian, should I have said, "I have no view of what you should do, it's up to you; I'm going to go pray"?

I knew what he didn't: that if he killed himself, he'd probably be in a situation far worse than whatever he was in at the moment. But I didn't see that as the moment to try to make an instant convert. Instead, I reasoned with him (from the perspective of what I knew and he didn't) in a way that appealed to him, that ended up with him not killing himself. Then I made an appointment with him, and at that time did talk with him about Jesus.

I guess according to Thomas, I should have tried to win him that moment and, if he hadn't converted, told him I had nothing for him.

Dan

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.