I’m
going to reiterate a point I already made. This election was not a repudiation
of social conservatism. If Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum had been our
standard-bearer and lost to Obama, that would be somewhat different.
Even
then, it would be simplistic to say their loss represented a repudiation of
social conservatism. Some voters are voting for something, some voters are
voting against something, and some voters do both.
For
instance, if a voter cast his vote for Obama rather than Santorum, that wouldn’t
necessarily–or even presumably–mean he was voting against Santorum’s social
policies. He might simply be voting for something he likes about Obama. And it
might not even be a policy issue. He might find Santorum’s demeanor
off-putting. He might find Obama more personable.
Now,
that doesn’t mean conservatives should be complacent. The election was a
setback for social conservatism.
But
there’s a danger of mirror-reading. Because social conservatives vote
ideologically, it’s tempting for them to project that outlook onto other
voters. Yet that runs the risk of viewing another voter’s motivations through
our own spectacles rather than their spectacles.
Reelecting Obama does reflect moral indifference on the part of many voters, which is not the same thing as moral endorsement.
Reelecting Obama does reflect moral indifference on the part of many voters, which is not the same thing as moral endorsement.
Very true. I imagine that with Romney being the Republican choice that many social conservatives didn't vote for either candidates which adds another dimension to your observation.
ReplyDeleteI image there could be more moral indifference as it relates to voting with a growing post-modern population. What do you think?
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeleteThere's been some movement in the direction you've suggested, but many non-conservatives aren't there yet. Not all of Romney's voters were conservatives. Many self-identified moderates voted for him. Many people who voted for Obama identified non-liberal reasons for doing so (his handling of Hurricane Sandy, they thought he seemed more empathetic than Romney, etc.). Factors like incumbency and a desire to give a president more time can influence how people vote without regard to whether the president is liberal, moderate, or conservative. If you add up all of the conservative voters, moderates who voted for Romney, people who voted for Obama for non-liberal reasons, people who voted for a conservative third party candidate, non-liberals who didn't vote, etc., there's still a lot of potential for conservatives to get elected to the presidency under a large variety of circumstances.
There's some truth to what you say, but I don't think it runs that deep. I think it could bounce back very easily. Basically, a lot of folks operate on common grace. That's their center of gravity. Barring outside forces (like liberal totalitarian gov't), they have some core common sense values. That's their default setting. They can be moved away from that through artificial pressure, but once you lift the pressure, they revert.
DeleteTake sodomite marriage. I think most folks are instinctively opposed to homosexuality. However, many people don't know how to argue for their position. It's purely instinctive. So they can be swayed by peer pressure.
Socially liberal policies in this country are being imposed from the top down by an elite cultural minority. It's not a grassroots movement. There's no popular groundswell for these policies. So that could be reversed overnight.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess
Delete"I would love to believe the the liberal movement is something other than a grassroots movement. What would you say about the role of our educational institutitions and the impact that is having on this movement?"
That's the opposite of a grassroots movement. That's coercive topdown indoctrination.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeleteThere's a difference between how well Obama is doing and how well people think he's doing. A lot of voters couldn't give you detailed numbers about unemployment, the national debt, the number of people on food stamps, etc. They may have a vague impression about things having been bad when Obama took office and still being bad now. They don't know the extent to which things have gotten worse. They don't know how much worse unemployment has been under Obama, that his accumulation of debt is significantly worse than Bush's, etc. All they're going by is vague impressions they have. Things were bad in 2008, and they're bad now, so some people just assume that there hasn't been much change. Or they hear that the economy is getting better, and they assume that the point of reference is the economy under Bush. In reality, people are referring to the economy being less bad now than it was previously under Obama. But it's worse under Obama than it was under Bush. Some people don't realize that.
Even when people are aware of how much worse the economy is under Obama, there's another factor involved. Who do you blame? Many people, including a lot who don't identify themselves as liberal and some who didn't vote for Obama, blame Bush more than they blame Obama. It doesn't make sense, but many people hold that view.
Regarding Hispanics, I suggest reading this post at National Review. Hispanics don't seem to have much concern for "traditional values", and I doubt that immigration policy is as important to them as is often suggested. But there is room for Republicans to improve their Hispanic support, as George Bush (the younger) proved.
Keep in mind that we live in an age of information and technology, an age of television with dozens of channels, blogs, Twitter, etc. When people don't want to take the time or effort to sort through the large amount of information around them, they often look for some sort of shortcut to take. They vote based on who they're more familiar with and therefore perceive as less of a risk (incumbency), an intuition they have about a candidate (they have a more positive emotional response to Obama than they have to Romney), how the candidate seemed to handle an event recently in the news (e.g., Hurricane Sandy), etc. Voters who make their decision on such a basis aren't demonstrating their belief in a liberal worldview by voting for a liberal. The same approach that led them to vote for Obama in 2012 could lead them to vote for a conservative Republican in 2016. The exit polls this year and data from other elections tell us that a lot of people did decide their vote based on factors like the ones I just mentioned.
Then there are the people who normally wouldn't vote for somebody like Obama, given his record, but did so anyway because of pride. They don't want to admit that they made a mistake by voting for him in 2008. Now that their pride has been protected, they can go on to vote as they normally would.
Comment has been blocked.
It could also be the economy and they still think Obama is better than the alternative. Exit polls seemed to suggest this, not on the raw handling of the economy (technical expertise), but on who would be better at actually caring about other people (empathy for others). I suspect people who are poor and suffering prefer someone who is more likely to do something less effective for them than someone who is likely to do something very effectively that may or may not have any direct bearing on the quality of their lives.
DeleteI've spent some time volunteering and working with people from failed schools or who otherwise have little hope (e.g., the refugee community). These people, if they vote, seem to vote for liberal parties simply because they are the most likely to care for them. I know some conservatives who think that it is in their best interest that these people vote for conservative values, but why should they believe that? The poor and refugees in these areas don't trust conservatives because conservatives tend to ignore them, and they certainly aren't receiving help from conservative charities or other outreach efforts in any serious way. If Christians want more people to vote for their party of choice, they need to give and serve more--and at sacrificial levels. Otherwise, government will look like the best of two unhappy choices.
Help the poor better than the government does, and people will choose smaller government.
Ed Dingess
Delete"This country has fundamentally moved away from Christian values that used to serve as its greatest moral influence. This fact is undeniable."
I think that's simplistic. In varies in time and place.
Ed I think is spot on and some are caught in wishful thinking. One needs to look at the political trajectory and consider the acceptance of sin. The main reason I believe the trajectory of the cultural down turn and the rapidity of it is so steep is that the political elites managed to make sin a virtue. This started over a century ago but the political parties took advantage of it with the implementation of social policies that made the sins of coveting and stealing a virtue as long as they are administered by the government. The churches, particularly the mainlines, essentially rolled over and accepted the premise and continue to this day but we can now add in the young liberal postmodern churches. Because man is sinful he will always vote for legalized plunder (see Bastiat, Isaiah) unless he is virtuous through the hand of God whether it be by common grace or special revelation. However I believe the common grace argument that things could quickly swing back is belied by Romans 1 where we are informed that the people who participate in sexual immorality such as homosexuality is a judgment from God which I would extrapolate to a nation that excepts same is under judgment and the restraining hand of Common Grace has been removed to a degree and is being removed more and more. The people of this nation like their sin and are willing to permit the next person's sin as long as one does not condemn theirs which is moral endorsement by any measure.
ReplyDeleteTo also echo a point about demographics they do not look good for the future because if you look at the Politico country map take a look at the county results and look at the ones that have a government state college and look at who they voted for and it was Obama by a large margin, e.g. Aluchua in FL, Clarke in GA, etc. I would only quibble with what the reasons that Asians and Hispanics voted for Obama which I think will be borne out over time that immigration wasn't the major factor. They voted for him to get the promised freebies from the drug OPM (Other Peoples Money) via the god called the state e.g. health care, welfare, etc. The only thing that will change the trajectory is some sort of cataclysmic event such as a war, total financial collapse, internal collapse, etc which God uses to bring many to see the wages of sin.
Ed Dingess and ScottO,
DeleteWe don't have to estimate what we think motivated people in this election. We have a lot of exit poll data and other detailed information from past elections to go by. Only a minority of voters cite some form of liberalism as their primary reason for voting as they did. Factors like incumbency, blaming Bush for the economy, and appreciating Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy aren't equivalent to support for liberalism.
The two of you refer to trajectories. So, why did Obama's majority shrink so much from 2008 to 2012, and why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010? Why do the Republicans control most governorships and state legislatures?
As I said earlier, Bush did significantly better than Romney among Hispanics. Other Republicans have done significantly better than Romney with other groups. Romney is a former moderate who just recently became conservative and was widely perceived as unusually insincere and opportunistic. He was unusually vulnerable to class warfare. He fell short of McCain's support by millions of votes, and McCain wasn't much of a candidate. Romney, though he had some significant strengths, doesn't represent a ceiling for Republicans. They can do a lot better. The Republicans go up and down with different groups. You can't assume that their support will only get worse, much less that it will get worse as fast as you're suggesting.
Concerning Hispanics, Ed, you need to address the data cited in the National Review post I linked. You haven't cited any contrary evidence.
And you tell us that "This [black] community is almost entirely make up of social liberals." Where are you getting that conclusion? A significant number of blacks are opposed to homosexual marriage and abortion, for example, even though they so often vote for liberals. See here and here, for instance.
You write, "People know how bad things are and they still reelected Barak Obama." Again, why should we think they know how much worse things are? How many know that things are so much worse than they were under Bush? If they have a vague impression that things were bad under Bush, and they have a vague impression that things are still bad, then why should we think they realize how much worse things have gotten? Exit polls and other data suggest that people blame Bush more than they blame Obama for the bad economy. Those people are ignorant and wrong, but that's the view they hold. And if they hold that view, it doesn't follow that they're primarily motivated by liberalism, much less liberalism on social issues.
You write, "20% of Americans identify as purely secular now. What will that number be in four years? 22%, 25%, 30%?" First of all, what does "purely secular" mean? It's not as though 20% deny God's existence or are agnostic, for example. And why assume that the number will grow so much over the next four years, possibly even getting up to something like 30%? If that's what tends to happen, then why didn't the number grow so fast in previous years?
Again, I don't deny that there's some truth to what you're saying. Republicans need to do more to reach out to Hispanics and other groups. The society is largely liberal and moving in the wrong direction on some issues. But we're moving in the right direction on other issues, and the overall situation isn't as bad as you're suggesting. I'm ignorant of some of the issues involved, and there are a lot of complexities. In some cases, I think it's unpredictable what will happen. But, overall, I think you're too pessimistic.
Jason,
DeleteJust so we are clear I am not pessimistic about the situation but a realist because I believe, 1 that the election is a result of God’s sovereign plan and 2 that I as a Christian have a duty to do what I can in my sphere in politics and in any other arena.
The trajectory is unmistakable, since Wilson the progressives have been winning the war to promote liberalism in the USA in incremental steps albeit in fits and starts. This has been occurring concurrently within the churches, academia and the media. I am not just looking at this election but the overall historical trajectory. Man within Christianity because of his moral depravity naturally drifts toward Pelagianism and elevating himself to be a god which is the end result of liberalism. The same is true within secular liberalism and it has been on a steady march since the end of the 19th century pushed by both political parties. I don’t think it should be necessary for me to produce all the numbers for you to prove this fact however if you wish I can do so. Just as fairly recent example in 1967 homosexual acts were illegal in all the states except Illinois. Abortion was restricted in all the states and illegal in all cases in 30 states in 1972. The illegitimacy rate in 1960 was 5.3% of all births and in 2005 it was 36.8%.
The reason I believe Obama’s numbers are down is because he had some policies that were unpopular to a number of the Democrat patchwork constituencies but not enough to propel Romney to victory for instance coal miners, auto workers, rabid environmentalists & antiwar activists, etc. In addition since McCain was unpopular with a number of conservatives and libertarians some voted for Obama in 08 as a protest to the Republican establishment and sat out this election because they disapproved of Romney over Ron Paul and the same. The Republicans won in 2010 as a reaction to Obamacare (particularly the method of ramming through passage) and the tea party organization however social conservatism was not on the ballot nor was it a major factor in the victories. Also you need to look at the layout of the red versus blue districts in the house which determines the split via gerrymandering since the census and Tom Delay which push the house at the moment to be more red than blue. I would concur that social conservatism plays a greater role even a pivotal role in the house make-up but its effect will be diluted over time via the demographic shifts. The under 30 crowd is voting heavily democratic even if their percentages for Obama dropped their overall numbers increased by a point. I believe this is due to peer pressure (not going to change in the foreseeable future because the schools are populated almost exclusively by liberals), the natural propensity of the young to be idealistic, and the OPM for tuition, healthcare, food, etc. On the state governors I believe you are presupposing that if a governor is a Republican then he is a social conservative however that is not always the case e.g Christie. The progressives determined a long time ago that if they could get control of the government at the Federal level they could lose the governors and state legislatures because they can ram from the federal level their agenda down the throats of the states by reducing or eliminating republicanism. They have achieved this through a number of means via constitutional amendments (16, 17, 26), legislation and the courts. Now it is true the number of state legislatures flipped in 2010 but again this was to provide a bulwark against the implementation of Obamacare but in reality it is a sieve. Short of nullification, secession or civil war Obamacare (and the inevitable single payer government plan it will morph into (NHS style) when it does not turn into the panacea promised) is the law of the land.
Now returning to your original premise that the election was not a referendum on social conservatism I disagree in the main. We have some bell weathers that refute the assertion the passing of pro homosexual marriage through popular vote going four for four in the blue states. It is only a matter of time before it will pass in the red or be forced via judicial or federal fiat. The loss of Richard Mourdock and the Akin debacle will resonate for years and will be used as a bludgeon. Mourdock particularly does damage to your point because Indiana went red however he lost for espousing a reasonable Christian and social conservative position. I wonder how long before Donnely evolves on his prolife position however I digress. But to even more demonstrate the how wobbly your position is that one thing this election told us the polls tend to be right so read this and weep. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
DeleteScottO,
DeleteYou entered this thread with a comment about how Ed Dingess “is spot on”. I’ve interacted with his claims. I’ve cited exit poll data and other evidence against what he’s argued. Instead of defending what Ed wrote, you keep shifting to other topics. You also seem to be moving back and forth between replying to Steve Hays and replying to me, without specifying who you’re responding to or which comments you have in mind. I don’t know which of my comments you think are refuted by anything you’ve written.
I don’t deny that there’s been societal decline in some contexts. And we’ve improved over time in other areas. Ed’s comments earlier in this thread, which you endorsed, went beyond noting the sort of societal decline you’re highlighting.
As far as the election this year is concerned, you aren’t interacting with the exit poll data and other evidence I’ve cited. I haven’t denied that some people voted with liberal motives and that there were some liberal victories. What you need to do is explain how you get from something like support for homosexual marriage by majorities in a few states to a conclusion that most people were voting with liberal motives.
In your attempt to dismiss what happened in the 2010 election, you said that the 2010 vote was about healthcare. Why the double standard? On the one hand, you ignore the motives of most voters in 2012 in order to highlight liberal exceptions, like support for homosexual marriage in a few states. On the other hand, you tell us that the 2010 election should be judged by the alleged primary motive of most voters, namely to oppose Obama’s healthcare legislation. If we’re supposed to focus on the primary interest of most voters in 2010, then why not do the same with 2012? Do the exit polls and other data suggest that most voters this year were primarily motivated by liberalism? No.
When there are signs of improvement in some context, such as a decline in support for Obama from 2008 to 2012, you dismiss it. And you tell us how much worse you think things will get in the future. Actual improvements are dismissed. Potential declines, which haven’t actually happened, are assigned more weight. Some of your conclusions are going beyond what the evidence suggests.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeleteYou keep ignoring the exit poll data I’ve been citing. You tell us how you think people would have viewed Hurricane Sandy and what you think would have motivated people to vote as they did. I’m citing exit poll data and evidence from earlier elections. You’re ignoring that evidence and giving us your impressions of what seems likely to you. Your impressions are outweighed by the contrary evidence I’ve been citing.
You dismiss the 2010 election as a matter of local politics. House races are local, but they’re also national. And people motivated by liberalism probably aren’t going to vote for conservative Republicans at the local level. It’s not as though liberalism only has federal implications. Your explanation of the 2010 results makes less sense than mine.
Concerning Hispanics, you’ve rejected the data cited in the National Review post I linked, and you tell us that you “think it was the immigration issue that just polarized many in that community”. All you’re doing is ignoring the evidence against your position and restating that position. That’s not persuasive. And if immigration is as significant a factor as you’re suggesting, then why did John McCain also get significantly less of the Hispanic vote than Bush did? Romney’s not the only one.
What you’re saying about social liberalism among blacks is significantly different than what you said earlier. I was responding to your earlier comments.
You say, “Social values are just not that important to them and this places them in the category of social liberals.” No, if you hold non-liberal views, but those views “aren’t that important” to you, that doesn’t make you a social liberal. Let’s consider a doctrinal analogy. Let’s say somebody believes in premillennialism, but the doctrine isn’t of much importance to him. He even attends a church that’s amillennial. Does it follow that he should be classified as an amillennialist? No. And that sort of thing frequently happens, in politics, in religious contexts, and elsewhere. People have a hierarchy of priorities. A belief doesn’t have to be high up in that hierarchy in order for it to be considered a belief the person holds.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou refer to how people have cell phones, computers, and such, and you tell us that they therefore must be informed about these political issues. No, people can use technology for a lot of different purposes. How many people use their computer to find out that the national debt is sixteen trillion dollars, that the number of people on food stamps has increased as much as it has, etc.? Polls show that most people can’t even name the vice president. Their use of cell phones and other technology doesn’t assure us that they’ll be familiar with even that sort of basic political information. I doubt that even half the people who voted know a significant amount about how much worse things have gotten, economically, under Obama. How many could even tell you what the national debt was under Bush and what it is now? I suspect that even many who voted for Romney couldn’t tell you.
You say, “That is, we are not called to influence culture through anything other than being what we are: the body of Christ loving one another, our enemies, and preaching the good news that Christ has risen.” If it’s acceptable for Christians to do what you’re doing in this thread – studying political issues, discussing them with other people, etc. – then why can’t Christians also do other things that are related, like voting and running for office? You say that you’re involved in financial services. Where does scripture command you to have such a job? It doesn’t. Yet, you think you’re permitted to have that job, and you decide how to conduct yourself in that context based on the implications of Biblical principles. The same is true regarding political matters. Scripture doesn’t tell us we can’t be involved in politics. And many Biblical principles, such as the ones we find in Proverbs about finances, protecting the innocent, etc., imply that we should be concerned with and involved in political matters. Abraham, Nehemiah, Daniel, and other Biblical figures were involved in warfare, held political offices, etc. In Acts, Paul repeatedly uses the political system of his day to advance his efforts, such as by appealing to his rights as a Roman citizen.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeleteOff-year elections don’t have to be the same as presidential elections in order to tell us something about the electorate and the nation. And just as the Republicans won most of the House races in 2010, they did so in 2012 as well.
If you want us to believe that the exit poll data is wrong, you need to explain why. We don’t begin with a default assumption that the information is wrong. The exit polls would have to be wrong to a large degree in order to support your position and contradict mine. You’ve given us no reason to think that’s the case. My exit poll data weighs more than your unsupported impressions regarding what you think motivated people.
Regarding Hispanic voters, you still aren’t addressing what was said about immigration in the National Review post I linked. You keep telling us that there must be a reason why Hispanics voted differently in the past. It doesn’t follow that immigration policy is the reason.
Concerning the ignorance of voters, you need to interact with what I said. I pointed you to the polling data showing that most people can’t even identify the vice president. I also explained that people can use cell phones, computers, etc. for purposes other than learning detailed political information (what the national debt is, how unemployment under Obama compares to unemployment under Bush, etc.). You aren’t interacting with what I said. You still haven’t explained how the use of something like a cell phone proves that the person using that technology is using it to get detailed information about political issues.
Concerning blacks and the social issues, go back and reread what you originally said. You initially said that “This [black] community is almost entirely make up of social liberals.” Citing something like 51% support for homosexual marriage doesn’t get you to “almost entirely”. And the black vote was highly Democratic long before the recent increase in support for homosexual marriage.
Regarding Christian involvement in politics, you’re ignoring most of what I said. I gave you examples of Biblical figures who were involved in warfare and held government offices, for example. I gave the example of Paul’s use of the laws of his day to further his efforts. I gave examples of Biblical principles that imply political involvement. All that you’re doing is ignoring what I said and restating your position. How does that advance the discussion? And you need to stop referring to “the Church’s mission”. The Bible sometimes addresses the church in general, but also addresses the individual believer at times. Individuals have opportunities and responsibilities that organizations, like the church, don’t have. They’re different entities. You also need to explain how a general principle like showing love to people doesn’t include something like protecting the lives of unborn children through the proper role of government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere in scripture.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess wrote:
Delete"Here is a paragraph in the article at the National Review that you seem to think if divinely inspired for some reason."
I cited a post at National Review. How does it follow that I think the post is "Divinely inspired"?
And why would you cite one paragraph from that post while continuing to ignore other parts of the post that are relevant? The paragraph after the one you quoted cites polling data that contradicts your argument. And you continue to ignore other evidence I've cited against your view of the Hispanic vote.
You wrote:
"You have NO exegetical support to argue that the Church has a mandate to engage in political activism in order to stop abortion."
Again, the issue isn't just what scripture says about "the Church". And something doesn't have to be "a mandate" in order to be permissible or an implication of a broader principle. I've given examples of Biblical principles that imply political activity.
As I said before, where's your Biblical "mandate" to post about politics in online forums, as you're doing now? If it's acceptable for you to be involved in such activity, why can't other Christians be involved in political activity in other ways?
You wrote:
"The result has been false Christians with something that looks like Christian values, but is really nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous moralists marching around in the name of Jesus trying to impose their values on everyone else."
You aren't giving us any reason to agree with your characterization. Even if the characterization were generally true, there's no reason to think that it must be true of everybody involved in politics.
You wrote:
"We are not called to impact a culture to begin with."
Yes, we are (Proverbs 24:11, Jeremiah 29:7, Matthew 5:13-16, Philippians 2:15, etc.). When you influence individuals, you influence the culture. When you influence groups of people, you influence the culture. It makes no sense to say that a Christian shouldn't "impact a culture". And, again, we wouldn't need a Biblical text specifically commanding us to do something in order for it to be acceptable to be involved in that activity or in order for that activity to be implied by a broader principle.
You wrote:
"We pound our chest in NC when we say we stopped gay marriage but 90% of evangelical pastors do nothing when members divorce unbiblically. This is what this political thinking has done to the church."
You give no evidence for your 90% figure. Even if that figure were accurate, it wouldn't follow that political involvement is the reason why pastors don't address divorce the way they should. You're connecting two things that aren't inherently connected.
Scott
Delete"One needs to look at the political trajectory and consider the acceptance of sin. The main reason I believe the trajectory of the cultural down turn and the rapidity of it is so steep is that the political elites managed to make sin a virtue"
What trajectory would that be? What makes you think there's a consistent pattern of piety that diminishes over time, from Colonial America through the Westward expansion down to the early 21C?
"However I believe the common grace argument that things could quickly swing back is belied by Romans 1 where we are informed that the people who participate in sexual immorality such as homosexuality is a judgment from God which I would extrapolate to a nation that excepts same is under judgment and the restraining hand of Common Grace has been removed to a degree and is being removed more and more."
What makes you think premarital and extramarital sex haven't always been fairly common in American culture?
Comment has been blocked.
I agree that the article you linked suggests that some people’s opinions on such issues have a weak foundation. It’s discouraging in a way, but it also presents us with a good opportunity to try to persuade them in the other direction. A lot of people, including some liberals, hold their views with a weak grip.
DeleteThanks for the encouragement regarding Triablogue. Yes, I’m sure we do agree about most issues.
Black leaders have been very critical of Obama's shift on sodomite marriage. You need to distinguish between Black evangelical leaders and the graying civil rights leadership.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess wrote:
Delete"My point is that exit poll data is always, always, always subject to interpretation. We need to critically receive these interpretations and always be cautious in what conclusions we draw from them."
I've cited specific 2012 exit poll data and specific data from other elections. If you think I've misinterpreted that data, then make that case. Telling us that the data can be misinterpreted, and that we should be cautious, doesn't refute anything I've said.
You wrote:
"While Paul used the law to appeal to Ceasar, there is never any indication that he lobbied for legal reform that was consistent with Christian values."
When Paul addresses the proper role of government (Acts 25:11, Romans 13, etc.), he's addressing political philosophy and is trying to get people to hold his view of the matter. When Paul addresses government officials in Acts, he doesn't just discuss matters like Christology, the resurrection, and baptism. He also tells them how they should conduct themselves in their roles as government agents. John the Baptist does the same. In the book of Revelation, the apostle John comments on the political systems of the world. And so on. I gave other examples earlier, which you continue to ignore.
Since Paul lived under systems of government far different than our own, in a much different culture, we wouldn't expect him to conduct himself the same way a twenty-first-century American would. But what Paul does in his context is enough to contradict your position.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeleteYou keep repeating bad arguments without interacting with what I've said in response to those arguments.
Again, scripture addresses more than "the church". And a direct "mandate" isn't needed in order for an activity to be permissible or for that activity to be an implication of a broader principle. I've given you examples of Biblical figures who served in government offices with Divine favor and Biblical principles that imply political activity. You keep ignoring that evidence.
You also keep connecting things that aren't inherently connected, as I said before. There's no reason to think that failing to disciple Christians, mishandling divorce, etc. are inherent results of being involved in politics or trying to change a culture. As I explained in an earlier post, it makes no sense to speak of being a Christian without influencing the surrounding culture. And I cited Biblical passages that contradict your position, all of which you've ignored.
You also keep ignoring the point I've made about your behavior in this discussion. Where's the Biblical "mandate" for "the church" to post in online forums about political matters, as you've been doing in this thread? You keep allowing yourself to do what you condemn others for doing. If you're going to claim that your behavior is permissible, or an implication of a broader principle, even though that behavior isn't directly "mandated" to "the church", I would say the same about Christian political activity and attempts to influence the culture.
Here's your attempt to address two of the Biblical passages I've cited:
"Acts 25:11 contains Paul's appeal to Ceasar. Nothing exegetically here to support political activism even a little. Paul even humbly submits and says if I am guilty of law-breaking then punish me accordingly. Romans 13 is not 'trying to get pople to adopt his personal political philosophy.' Contextually, after talking about persecution, and a host of very practice commands toward godly conduct, Paul then moves to the Christian and their relationship to their respective government. Pauls tells us the Roman Christians to submit to civil authorities because they are the ministers of God to that end. His concern is our Christian testimony."
Acts 25:11 involves a discussion between Paul and a government official. In that exchange, Paul addresses the proper role of government, such as its right to use capital punishment. In Romans 13, Paul isn't just telling Christians how to relate to the government, but is also outlining the proper role of government in the process. Acts 25 and Romans 13 both involve Paul's explanation of his political philosophy and an attempt on his part to persuade others of that philosophy. The notion that he wasn't concerned about such matters, yet he mentioned them anyway, makes no sense.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess,
DeletePaul doesn’t have to be “lecturing Festus on the role of government”, in the sense of only or primarily addressing that subject in the larger context, in order to be addressing governmental issues. I’ve explained how he addresses issues of government in the passages in question, and you’re still ignoring what I said. You aren’t addressing what I’ve said about Acts 25. Pointing to the larger context doesn’t prove that Paul doesn’t address governmental issues within that context. And pointing out that Paul tells Christians to obey the government in Romans 13 doesn’t refute my point that he’s presenting a view of government. You keep making irrelevant points that fail to refute what I’ve said.
You wrote:
”The Scriptures are special revelation and can only be understood/applied by those who possess the Spirit. Are you actually contending that the unbelieving community also possesses the Scriptures? You have said this more than once now and I think it is time you explain what you mean. The Tenakh was given to the Jew and every document of the NT canon was written to a Christian community addressing issues specifically related to Christian dogma and praxis.”
No, it’s not “time I explain what I mean”, since I’ve already explained it. Once again, you keep ignoring what I’ve said.
The fact that a book is written by, written to, or collected by a group or a member of a group doesn’t prove that the book can only be understood by that group or only has that group as its intended audience. Some of the New Testament documents are addressed to individuals, for example (Theophilus, Timothy, etc.). The use of those documents by the church was secondary and later in time. In his gospel, John tells us that he’s writing so that readers of the document may believe. He expects unbelievers to understand what he’s written and to be able to come to faith by means of reading his gospel. And so on.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
”I have not said it was a sin for the church to vote or even be active in politics.”
But you go on to say “I think the church has no business in politics… it serves as a tremendous distraction from the things we really should be doing”. If the church has “no business” being involved in politics, and it’s “a tremendous distraction from the things we really should be doing”, then explain why it’s not sinful to do something you have no business doing, something that’s a tremendous distraction from what you should be doing.
And you keep referring to the church. But individuals aren’t equivalent to the church, and not every group of Christians is equivalent to the church.
You wrote:
”You have not given good reasons for uncritically accepting unregenerate, human interpretations of exit poll data.”
Would you explain how my interpretation of the exit poll data is “unregenerate” and “human” in any way that’s relevant to this discussion? For example, if the poll reports that X percentage of people said Y about how Hurricane Sandy affected their vote, how is my interpretation of that information “unregenerate” or “human”? And what’s your alternative interpretation? You keep referring to the dangers of misinterpreting the exit polls, yet you don’t offer any alternative interpretation. You need to stop being evasive and interact with my arguments about the polling data.
You wrote:
”You have not provided any exegetical evidence to support your view that the church ‘ought’ to inform the government and morally influence its respective culture, that this is included in its mission in other words. In short, you simply have not made your case that this election was not a referendum on social conservatism.”
Your second sentence above doesn’t logically follow from the first. Even if I were to accept the first sentence, which I don’t, the second sentence wouldn’t be implied.
If scripture is the word of God, then any government is obligated to submit to it. What Paul says about governments in Acts 25 and Romans 13, for example, is mandatory to everybody. Since scripture addresses governmental issues, then individuals and organizations, including the church, have to apply those Biblical principles as part of their application of scripture in general.
Whether the 2012 election was “a referendum on social conservatism” is something that has to be judged by the exit poll data and other evidence you keep ignoring.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed Dingess
Delete"America has been moving more and more toward a secular worldview for years now."
You're ignoring counter trends. Take the homeschooling movement. Likewise, as college tuition continues to rise, and there are cheaper, more convenient alternatives like Phoenix University, public education, as well as the Ivy Leagues, will lose their competitive edge. Not to mention that in many cases a college degree is no longer cost effective. That's just one example.
It's like a chess game with two players. For every move there's a countermove.
"Abortion will NEVER be outlawed again. It is a pipe-dream to think it will."
What makes you think there was a consistent abortion ban in the past? Due to medical ignorance, people used to think life began, not at conception but "quickening." So abortion wasn't considered murder before "quickening."
Ed Dingess
ReplyDelete"Is it any wonder the church is in the condition it is? We can't even agree on something as foundational as the mission of the Church."
That's equivocal. Different Christians have different vocations. Is working a job to feed your family the mission of the church? No. But it's something a Christian husband and father ought to do.
Likewise, Christian men have a duty to protect and provide for their dependents. If a burglar breaks into your home, you have a duty to defend your family.
Well, that duty extends to political activism. If you let liberals take over the gov't, they will euthanize your parents and take your children from you. They won't allow Christian parents to raise their kids in the faith.
So a Christian family man has a duty to protect his family against the State, if the State poses a threat to his family. That involves political activism.
"Let America go and focus on the Church, the Christian community. There is much work to do here. Let us no longer neglect our own community while we are distracted by trying to build a more moral secular one that will not transform lives or change hearts."
The gospel is not a substitute for laws. And it's artificial to drive a wedge between "America" and our "community."
There are Christians fleeing the Middle East because they can't survival under Muslim oppression. Ancient Christian communities are becoming extinct throughout the Mideast.
The same thing will happen here if we bury our head in the sand.
This is a constant battle. Every day you have to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and renew the battle.
Ed Dingess
ReplyDelete"The Scriptures are given to the regenerate, to the church of Jesus Christ."
Actually, the Scriptures were giving to mixed communities. The old covenant community contained many reprobates. So did the new covenant community.
"The Scriptures are special revelation and can only be understood/applied by those who possess the Spirit."
The unregenerate can know what Greek and Hebrew words mean. The unregenerate can parse sentences and diagram paragraphs. They can analyze the flow of argument or narrative arc. They can use logic.
The unregenerate are capable of intellectual understanding. Their fundamental impediment is not a failure to understand the Bible, but a failure to believe the Bible and submit to the Bible. That's quite different.
"Are you actually contending that the unbelieving community also possesses the Scriptures? You have said this more than once now and I think it is time you explain what you mean. The Tenakh was given to the Jew and every document of the NT canon was written to a Christian community addressing issues specifically related to Christian dogma and praxis. The Christians now possess both the Tenakh and the NT writings as their sourse of authority for faith, for dogma, and for praxis. Your statement is confusing."
You're using the same appeal as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who say the Bible is the "Church's book," and can only be understood by and within the community of faith.
As Paul says, "9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:9-10).
ReplyDeleteThat's a summary of the ten commandments. Yet he applies it to unbelievers. Evangelism doesn't take the place of civil ethics.
Comment has been blocked.