Another question for my faithful readers...what is wrong w/ the follow statements.
A republican governments responsibility (like America) is to, within the realm of practicality, represent the wants and beliefs of the majority (there are obviously certain inherent rights that they protect that wouldn't change even if the majority disagreed. Government wouldn't legalize murder if 51% decided it was cool.) Therefore, as Christians, our PRIORITY should be to, through witnessing and evangelizing, attempt to influence the people, the mob, for Christ. The governments would then HAVE to represent a biblical worldview. If they didn't, we simply would not reelect them. But my history professor, Thomas Reid, would be quick to point out that politicians will never not represent the majority. They can't afford to.
And yes I understand that I used a double negative in the second to last sentence, Doug. You don't have to list that fact as one of the problems with those statements :-).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The statement doesn't make sense. Are we talking about a certain branch of government, or as a whole?
we're not talking about the judicial branch.
So the legislative and presidential branches? Certainly that would be a true statement, then.
there are many different ways to correct this statement, but i'll just pick two that i saw...
Christ didn't come into this world to free the Jews from the Roman government *even though he could have* thus our primary objective in this world isn’t necessarily to gain control in the government. While this would be a wonderful thing, i don't think it should be our PRIORITY. We are called to witness and evangelize PRIMARILY because of obedience to God and for His kingdom to come, not for the kingdom of this earth.
Secondly, after making your point you said "But my history professor....ect. ect." That didn't make any sense. Using "But" in a sentence usually means your going to contradict what you just stated or express the other side of the argument. It should have said, "Also, my history professor... ect." because your history professor's statement only confirmed what your point was above in saying that the politicians will always represent the majority.
does that make sense?
-Me
Once again, Melinda, you are missing the point. Apparently you missed all the discussions going on (with this blog and others) about Christians role in politics. I didn't think I had to spell that out.
And yes I can use but. I just said "if they didn't...represent" and the next statement was "But...they never would not...represent..."
and thats why I said what I did about a double negative.
"Apparently you missed all the discussions going on (with this blog and others) about Christians role in politics. I didn't think I had to spell that out."
hmmmm i thought i was missing something. the statement seemed so incomplete.
forgive me. i haven't seen any of the other blogs you're referring to.
ps would you agree with your history professor that "politicians will never not represent the majority" ?
Dude, easy Jake. Of course she didn't hear the discussion we had, she lives in Miami! The statement was hard for ME to understand, and I was there!
If they want to be re-elected, they can't afford to not represent the majority, I think that would be Professor Reid's point. A majority of the people that got them elected, obviously. If 51% of the country believes abortion is wrong, but 51% of Town X thinks it right, then Mayor X is going to represent his own towns pro-choice beliefs, even if it goes against the grain of the rest of the country.
But, yes, I think Reid's right that 95% of politicians want to be re-elected more then they want to be right about an issue.
What about the role the media plays in all of this? Depending on who you listen to in the media sometimes makes a difference as to what the majority wants. I sometimes wonder if the Politicians don't spend more time pandering to the will of the biggest donors, and swaying the majority based on that.
As for a Biblical worldview, I think it's silly for Christians to get all fired up over politics. Go and make disciples and trust God.
After 30 years the right wing, religious political arm has failed miserably.
To be sure, I'd love to see Christians occupying every elected position in all levels of government; so I'm pretty much a political junkie, and certifiably a religious pro-life right winger. But I think if our goal in reaching the lost is to create right wing voters, we're gonna be driving on four flat tires. The government of this country is not a "leadership" government in the truest sense of the word because it can't lead us anywhere the majority doesn't want to go, as your statement implies. Still I think we must prayerfully examine our motivations, and keep them pure. Ultimately I think a good government will be the result of, and not because of, loving and heartfelt prayer, out-reach and discipleship.
Post a Comment