Politics and The Christian Church

TheCrossby Patricia L. Dickson   7/6/14
Whenever the subject of politics and religion comes up, some individuals wish to believe that the two are not connected. Yet, many people are concerned with the speed of America’s moral collapse. Throughout both the bible and world history, the two have collided (wars were fought over religion). When the Kings and Judges in the bible were godly, the people and the land flourished. On the other hand, the evil kings and judges brought famine and destruction upon the people and the land (does any of this sound familiar?) Our founding fathers were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. America’s conflict appears to center around the Christian church and the current ruling politics.

The dilemma facing the Christian church today is whether to incorporate politics in its Sunday sermons or risk losing tax-exempt status. The congregants are voting citizens that should hear where the different political parties stand on issue that may conflict with the Christian faith. However, for the past five years, there has been an elephant in the room in most bible teaching church services across the United States. The elephant is the current administration and the Democratic Party’s unyielding push for abortion and gay marriage and the infringement on the church’s First Amendment rights (i.e. attempting to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control to its employees against its religious belief). Many pastors will not publically broach the subject of the different parties’ platforms from their pulpits due to fear and political correctness that has crept into the church. The church is no place for political correctness. The entire bible is not politically correct.

The Presbyterian Church appears to have completely adopted the entire Democratic Party’s platform from gay marriage, abortion to disinvestment in companies whose products Israel uses in the occupied territories. The United Methodist Church has aligned with the Democrats’ platform on the homosexual lifestyle and the Affordable Care Act but has since done an about face on the latter; however, there is a split within the denomination on the issue of gay marriage. In order for a Christian church to adopt the Democrats Party’s positions, it has to outright divorce itself from biblical teachings.

The black church has become the arm of the Democratic Party. As a teenager, I remember around election time, Democrat politicians would visit the black churches. The pastors would give these politicians free rein to stand in the pulpit and address the congregation as he or she felt necessary. The speeches were usually how the opposing politician (usually a Republican) did not have our best interest in mind. (We were never told what those interests were).The pastors would continue preaching on that same theme after the politicians left. There never seem to be any resignation or fear of losing the churches tax-exempt status. In many of today’s black churches, social justice, racism and grievance replaced the message of sin and forgiveness. The social justice message removes the individual from responsibility and blames all ones problems on society. Strangely, the topics missing from the sermons are fornication, homosexuality, coveting, envy, jealousy, ungratefulness, laziness, lying, murder, and theft (except when referring to the tithe). All such sins are plaguing the black community as well as all large segments of the rest of America.

Observing the actions of the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church and the black Church, I have concluded that as long as a so-called church aligns itself with the Democratic Party’s platform, there is no threat of losing its tax-exempt status. As long as the Democrat politicians can come into your church’s pulpit and disparage the Republican Party, your pastor can sleep well knowing that there is no threat of losing the church’s tax-exempt status. However, if you are a bible teaching church that refuses to give in to political correctness, it is time to give up the tax-exempt and “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’ (Mark 12:17) and get back to preaching the whole council of God. For the first time in the nation’s history, America is witnessing a government forcing its policies on the church.


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (2504 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Politics and The Christian Church

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Ideally, the churches should not be involved in politics (though they can certainly teach how their moral strictures should be applied politically). But the Democratic Party is at war with any church that dares to challenge liberal amoralism, and that forces all such churches to oppose the libertinist Left. Most “mainstream” churches have already made the decision to surrender to libertinism and become liberal social and political clubs, which is why most of them re collapsing in numbers.

    • Rosalys says:

      “Ideally, the churches should not be involved in politics (though they can certainly teach how their moral strictures should be applied politically).”

      “The Left is not a political party but a cultural movement like a religion that embraces all aspects of the human condition, including philosophical, social, meteorological, factual, and economics dogmas, not just political opinions.” – John C. Wright

      I’m not so sure that politics shouldn’t be discussed in the churches. If you mean that it is inappropriate for a preacher to tell the congregation to vote for Mr. A and Ms. B, and and not to vote for Mrs. C, because, “I am your pastor and I say so!” – (and tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me to be exactly what is going on in many of the black churches) – then I would agree with you. But if a pastor preaches from the Bible he will invariably get into realms which are very political indeed!

      This quote from John C. Wright came from a column he wrote last week and I put it here because it is not only true, but is probably a major reason why the left has been so successful. While they have successfully made Progressivism/Marxism/Communism/Facsism/Liberalism/What-ever-the-name-of-the-day-is the sum total of their existence, they have convinced too many would be Christians that their faith is a purely personal matter and should be put in a box to be brought out for a few hours on Sunday mornings. I don’t think that’s quite what The Lord had in mind as he bled out on the cross for three hours, experiencing all the wrath of the Father, purging all the sins of mankind committed over many millennia, past and future! Being a Christian had damned well better influence your politics as it should every aspect of your life! I contend that Christianity should be a cultural religious movement that embraces all aspects of the human condition, including philosophical, social, meteorological, factual, and economics dogmas, as well as political opinions. It’s what is called a World View. Too many Christians are just too comfortable with what in reality is a Satanic World View! Many would decry this description. Some are ignorant, some are unquestioning, some are lazy, some think they are Christians but really aren’t, and some are deceitful Alinskyites. I don’t propose to have the wisdom or authority to assign everyone into a category – only God knows the heart – but certainly there are red flags which should cause us to wonder.

      This is not to say that one must be a Christian to be a Republican/Conservative/Classic Liberal – or that one must be a Republican/Conservative/Classic Liberal to be a Christian. I am merely addressing the statement that churches should not be in politics. Biblically The Church is not a building, nor is it the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but it is the body of believers, the people. To say that churches should not be involved in politics is to say that people should not be involved in politics!

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Rosalys, you’ve really got a lot on the ball. You should think about writing feature articles in addition to your comments.

        In theory (and in a perfect world), no pastor would specifically mention political parties in his sermons. But “politics” itself is the body of a society. To not be involved in politics is basically to cede this important space to someone else.

        The standard theory is that one’s values should “inform” one’s politics. That there should be this slight degree of separation. And this is a fine idea, generally speaking. But that process has been subverted by Alinsky tactics wherein the Left has marginalized traditional Christians and told them that their beliefs have no place in the public square. No degrees of separation are valid. If you have an idea that comes from the Bible, it is out, out, out.

        For my money, I’ll come right out and say that no Christian of good faith can ever vote for the Democrat Party as it is now currently constituted.

        And you are right, Rosalys, about the dynamic that is occurring — the one outlined by John C. Wright and yourself. The Left is a religion. And it wishes to push Christians (but not Muslims) to the periphery telling them that while faith is a fine thing, it has no place in the public square. The public square should be “secular.”

        And given that Leftism is a sort of secular religion, this works out perfectly for them. And that a number of Christians have not only been cowed into silence by this ploy but — incredibly — have taken the Religion of Leftism inside of Christianity (where Karl Marx, not Jesus, is worshipped, for all intents and purposes) is astounding.

        And I must say, watching this happen I am left disheartened and confused about just what the purpose of a religion is. Watching today’s narcissistic culture turn Christianity into a feel-good, anti-poverty program (if not sometimes mixed with an anti-American program), I wonder if religion is ever about anything more than self-satisfaction.

        Should I join a cult just to be a member of a cult? Is the point for self-satisfaction? Or is there more substance to it? Is Christianity meant to be something more than a bit of psychological and social puffery? Is there therefore some truth to Chesterton’s remark, “The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried & found wanting but that it has not been tried.”

        As it is now, Marx’s dialectical materialism has been infused into much of Christianity, as it has in most of the culture. We think in terms of the material as a matter of course. The point is no longer about individual conduct and morals as measured against a timeless backdrop. It’s no longer about hoping for something better to come. It’s about creating a self-satisfying utopia in this world where the measure of “good” is “goods.” Justice (telling people, for example, that they should not steal) takes a back seat to “social justice” wherein the implicit message is that material want, not flawed moral behavior, is the cause of man’s grief.

        It thus becomes a bit of a complicated subject when talking about whether or not Christian churches should get involved in politics because many of them should shut the hell up and get their own houses in order first.

        • Rosalys says:

          Why, thank you, Brad! I am learning a lot from this site. Among other things I am learning what Libertarianism is really all about – with a reservation here and there as I really do like some of Steve Lancaster’s reasoning.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I, too, have learned a lot about libertarians….most of it negative. But there are some good qualities as well. But the entire ethos is one of hyperbole, extremism, and simple-mindedness.

            And on the other hand, I wonder if libertarians have learned the first things about conservatives or if they simply prefer their stilted view of conservatives. I think the latter.

            Steve wrote some wonderful movie and book reviews. And he certainly was good at espousing the libertarian ethos. The problem is, the ethos is wafer-thin and cannot exist outside the rarified air of inbred intellectual ideas.

            Is that ungracious to say or merely true? I don’t plan on pussy-footing around the libertarian issue. I think libertarianism is another expression of the materialist/secular/counter-culture culture.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Libertarianism is an absolutist ideology, which has no room for practical considerations, much like modern liberalism. Conservatives and the older types of (post-classical) liberals are more pragmatic, with their ideology forming more of a framework than a straitjacket.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Yes, framework rather than a straightjacket. That’s a good characterization of it, Timothy. I might have to steal that one. 🙂

            • Rosalys says:

              Many Conservatives and Libertarians alike seem to worship at the feet of Ayn Rand, particularly Atlas Shrugged. I din’t get around to reading it until a year and a half ago and I have mixed feelings. Much of it I liked, but… Well, let’s put it this way, Atlas Shrugged is every bit Utopian as anything the left has to offer – and I have an inherent distrust of Utopians.

        • David Ray says:

          Forgive me Lord Nelson, but I nearly sinned. Back in ’08, I contemplated voting for Obama as a “protest” vote since McCain would win TX anyway.
          Two women cured me of that itch: My mom who threatened me with seeing the back of her hand at 30 mph and Sarah Palin. (Sarah on the ticket won my enthusiasm and the MSM’s ire.)

          As for religion, it is to me a man’s opinion and only considered if it is under the rubric of Christianity (last count had 365 forms of religion under the Protestant vane alone). After all, Islam is a religion and only fools see it as one of “peace”.
          Consider that it was the top “religious” leaders that had Christ nailed to a cross.
          Consider that the healed blind man’s parents were too terrified of the Pharisees to acknowledge the joy of Jesus healing their son.
          In short, religion is man made – Christianity is God made.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I’m not sure I could have voted for the McCainiac if Palin hadn’t been on the ticket. Not that I would ever consider voting for the Donkey ticket, but there are always third parties (e.g., the Constitution Party) or write-ins.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            In short, religion is man made – Christianity is God made.

            I tend to agree with you, David, with the caveat the Dennis Prager has spoken of regarding rituals, which he sees as good and necessary because they are a physical way (and we are partially physical beings) to express, or intersect with, the divine. So long as it is kept in mind that rituals are pointing to a thing, and are not the thing, we’re good.

            And I see religion as an expression of the Mystery of Creation and Being. Those religions may be literally true or not…or partially true, which seems most likely. But I see religion as the ritual of contemplating God, not God himself. That’s my interpretation and I know it’s one many will disagree with.

            It’s very easy to try to possess God (control Him) via rituals if we take them too literally, turning God into a superstition, at best, and a slave of us, at worst. It will be very interesting when the Ten Commandments Symposium gets to The Third Commandment about not taking the name of the Lord in vain. One interpretation of this is that we are not to try to possess God and use his prestige for personal gain and influence. With this understanding, a violent, intrusive, or oppressive fundamentalist religion would be impossible. This understanding of God is not a God who wins our wars for us or is a personal servant in regards to what we want. Instead, we are to battle out of ourselves (the confines of our narrow egos) and move toward the Divine, not vice versa.

    • My2Cents says:

      Mr. Lane, where as you say the churches should not be involved in politics, you ought to know that politics is certainly involved in the churches of America. I personally think every Christian and pastor should be condemning the evil forces of government every time the church doors are opened. That is one of the reasons that the U.S.S.A (United Socialist States of America) are in such a mess today. I believe that those churches that have solid moral foundations should be all over the government and that the government not be able to do a single thing about it. That is my opinion and you can take it and five dollars and buy a cup of coffee in most places but not all.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        My point is that ideally the churches should not be involved in politics, but that the militant Christophobia of the left forces them to do otherwise to fight back against those who would destroy any open religion that dissents from libertinism. But it’s a battle forced on them by the libertinists and Christophobes.

  2. Rosalys says:

    The Progressives, a long time ago, realized that Christianity was a major obstacle to their agenda and if they were to advance they would have to destroy the Churches. They have patiently worked and have made great strides toward this goal over the last century. They have done so through infiltration and like termites, working silently on one piece of the structure after another, have hollowed out the message of the Gospel to the point where there is very little left holding up a corrupt facade. The good news or the Good News inherent within the Gospel message is that Christ is ever ready to forgive and restore when His people repent of their wickedness.

    We have to expose these wolves in sheep’s clothing for exactly what they are – interlopers and usurpers who preach an anti-gospel for the purpose of destruction.

    A wonderful essay, Patricia!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The Progressives, a long time ago, realized that Christianity was a major obstacle to their agenda and if they were to advance they would have to destroy the Churches.

      First off, for what it’s worth, my study of Christianity — particularly some of the great Catholic writers — has led me to understand that this is a rich, deep, and complex subject. It is not (or does not have to be) the province of the simple-minded, which is the conceit of the “secular” types, right or left.

      Just as I think libertarianism as a thought process makes a person stupid, so does Leftism/secularism. If one starts out with the dogma that all things derived from the Bible are inferior, then where does one have to go but to nihilism, disintegration, and destitution? If “thou shalt not murder” is considered passé, at best (if not downright the province of backward knuckle-draggers), then what is to stop a culture which for its own wanton sexual pleasure deems the extinction of unborn children to be some kind of new “right”?

      And it is simple-mindedness (just read Annie’s latest article) that is the product of a “Progressive” education. And libertarianism seems to do the same thing to people. They are only able to think in terms of high-contrast stereotypes. And there is pride taken in not conforming to traditional commonsense standards. As Theodore Dalrymple states in “Farewell Fear”:

      However, there is a lot of cultural pressure on people nowadays to appear not to conform to what were once the mores of society, especially among those who come from discontented or resentful sectors of society. Individuality, the most desired but elusive of attainments in mass society, seems to require the repudiation of what was once deemed respectability. It is not respectable to be respectable.

      Conservatism (at least American conservatism) does not mean opposing all change. It means considering why a pillar, post, or fence is there in the first place before tearing it down. One might repaint the post or fix the dry rot. But not tear it down simply because it’s there. In regards to things such as gay marriage, neither libertarians nor Leftists give any mind to why the institution of marriage is there. And the disintegration of marriage and families is causing real harm.

      But the true simpletons of society are married to their ideology, and will not let that ideology go no matter the destruction caused by these ideas. They have their egos on the line. And their ideas are hardly born from the Bible which states “blessed are the meek.” These are a puffed-up people. Instead, the ideologies of both the Left and libertarians are predicated upon them being the smartest, wisest, and/or most compassionate people on the planet. This is one reason they cling to their ideas even though they are often self-evidently silly ideas.

      It is convenient for the dastardly Marxists, Leftists, and useful-idiot Progressives to pooh-pooh religion and all ideas that came before their supposedly anointed selves graced us with their presence. But they are aided and abetted now by a culture that has grown rude, shallow, negligent, indulgent, narcissistic, infantile, and ignorant. The only care is for the satisfaction of the next pleasure. Man is thus reduced to a dumb animal. We see this now in what used to be man’s higher pursuits, including the arts. All things are tainted by the Left. It is a spiritually barren ideology.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The leftist reflexively rejects all traditions (except their own, of course, this being itself a leftist tradition dating back to the French Revolution and the Jacobins), including such concepts as civility and decency. Of course, this makes leftism a very convenient politics/religion for sociopaths.

  3. ronlsb says:

    One correction, Patricia. It’s the Presbyterian Church USA that has yielded to homosexuality and many other things. There are still a number of conservative Presbyterian denominations in the US who have not folded to political correctness at the expense of Biblical truths. Blessings.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As an Episcopalian by upbringing (though a deist now), I will point out that this is also happening in APEC (and the Anglican community in general). There are many Episcopal churches that reject the cultural liberalism (and rejection of genuine Christianity) of the hierarchy in both England and America. The last I heard, the Nigerian archbishop was more or less the leader of this movement.

      I can remember noticing a book by Bishop Spong (a committed liberal on all issues) on a remainder table that talked about what Christianity needed to do to succeed. I didn’t bother to get it, but presumably he was saying that they had to liberalize on moral issues (something he was famous for supporting) in order to keep up their numbers. I thought this was rather ironic, given that reality has shown that religions that reject morality decline drastically, whereas those that retain their codes hold their own or even grow.

  4. Kathy says:

    Terrific article, particularly because it informs me of a part of Christianity with which I have little knowledge–the black church.

    Does anyone else think that the trouble with Christians and Christianity in America is we no longer know what we believe, or why we believe it? I’m convinced our lack of doctrinal knowledge has weakened our faith, and our witness.

    • Rosalys says:

      “Does anyone else think that the trouble with Christians and Christianity in America is we no longer know what we believe, or why we believe it?”

      Yes, Kathy! We are on the same page here!

      Regarding the leftist infiltrators, quite often they know the pertinent verses in scripture! I spent a long time wondering where the (so called) Christian, pro-sodomy crowd gets the justification for their views. I think much of it is ignorance (and laziness), and some more of it is trying to reconcile God’s justice with His love. They think in terms of one or the other rather than both. But then there are other vile individuals who really don’t give a rip what God has to say about the subject! After being puzzled for several years, how my friend whom I had considered a fellow Christian for more than 30 years, could jump on the homosexual so-called marriage bandwagon I really went searching for that verse in the Bible which I had missed and I just couldn’t find it. Then I happened to come across Matthew Vine. There is a YouTube video made of a speech/lecture/sermon he gave (at a church!) telling everyone why the plain language of scripture wasn’t really all that plain. He knew every single verse in the Bible where homosexuality is dealt with, and he knew what the very plain language of scripture meant, because he spent a whole hour telling the congregation that water isn’t wet, the sun is not hot, black is really white, and there really is a fantastic deal on a bridge for sale somewhere! It was the most convoluted diatribe I had heard in a long time. But he delivered it with tears in his eyes and I felt sorry for him for a while, thinking this poor schlub is really tortured and someone should take him aside in love and tell him the truth. I then watched another Matthew Vine video where he clearly wasn’t at all tortured. He was merely playing a bunch of gullible softies for fools and I no longer had any sympathy for this tool of Beelzebub! He reminds me of Satan quoting scripture to The Lord (talk about an idiot!)

      “Even the demons believe—and tremble!” James 2:19

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The comparison of such people to Beelzebub is apt, Satan being the Father of Lies. One method by which libertinists err is the (often deliberate) failure to accept that “love” has many meanings. In their case, when convenient, they translate them all into erotic love.

        • Rosalys says:

          I’m not sure that the liberationists know any other definition!

        • David Ray says:

          Five words for “love” in Greek. One is “eros” from which we get erotic – Godly when between man and wife.
          Agape means unconditional. Storkeo (sp?) means maternal caring. (Fifth one escapes me.)
          And of course; Philadelphia does mean “Brotherly love” . . . but now that city means pack a 9mm. It appears that the cities’ title has lost it’s original meaning. I just hope that Declaration doesn’t follow with it.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Philadelphia can also mean “sisterly love”. The first Ptolemaic pharaoh to follow the ancient Egyptian practice of marrying his sister was called Ptolemy Philadelphus. But the root here is “philo”; thus, philosophy is (theoretically) a love of wisdom, though today it may all too often be a love of sophistry.

  5. David Ray says:

    “The entire bible is not politically correct.”

    Mrs. Dickson: Very well observed. Very well said.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of this subject in general, M. Catharine Evans has a very interesting blog post over at American Thinker: Are Beck and Company Funding Lawlessness in the Name of Jesus?.

    Beck is taking some heat for raising money for illegal aliens.

    I don’t have the answer for “What Would Jesus Do?” in this instance. Nor do I know if Beck is simply representing that aspect of human nature as articulated by Theodore Dalrymple:

    There is in the article a moral exhibitionism, which is generosity of spirit at other people’s expense. This, I think, is one of the sicknesses of our age, the desire to appear more-compassionate-than-thou.

    Beck lost me as a thoughtful person because he seems to be in the habit of making himself cry on command.

    One thing we need to understand is that no one is under any obligation to give aid and comfort to invaders. And that’s what the illegal aliens are. I think if we are to show them compassion (and we should) it should be via programs in their own country because the solution isn’t simply to move the problem here.

    If it is possible to give these invaders short-term aid before we send them back, that’s fine. If that’s what Beck is doing, all the better. But any discussion of this subject is not complete unless we realize the evil and hatred behind this push for illegal immigration by Obama and the Left. They hate this country. They have no affinity for illegal aliens. They are just a means to attack this country.

    I’m not sure what Jesus would do. But Jesus would not have been a useful idiot to evil Marxists. Surely we can help these people without simply moving their problem here and compounding it by breaking the law.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That’s exactly my reaction to Beck’s initiative. Provide decent treatment because we are a humane people — and send these invaders back as quickly as we can.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Provide decent treatment because we are a humane people — and send these invaders back as quickly as we can.

        The problem comes with the definition of the word “decent”. If by that one means the minimal amount to keep them fed, clothed and safe, ok. If one wants to do much more than that, then I am against it.

        What is the saying? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The better these people are treated, and they are not all kids, the longer they are kept in the USA, the more the word will spread back in their homes that more such people should make the trek to the Rio Grande.

        Furthermore, the “decency” shown to these people is proportional to the “evil” done to the people of the USA. The only difference is the “decency” is more recognizable because it is focused on a smaller number of people who are collected in groups at the border. Whereas the “evil” is dispersed throughout the USA therefore not as acute.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Great points, Mr. Kung.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          You’re quite correct about the implications of treating them too well, and in fact people have complained about just that regarding Beck’s actions. That’s why this MUST be combined with sending them back as quickly as is physically possible. If someone objects that we can’t send them back to Central America, then treat them all as Mexicans (we have no definitive proof that they aren’t) and ship them all to Mexico City.

          And strengthen that border immediately by calling out the National Guard (the states can actually do this, albeit at their own expense, if they are being invaded — as Texas certainly is — or are in “imminent danger”), paying for it with the money that the Fascist Messiah wants to devote to lawyers to help the invaders stay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *