Pandora's box: If you're going to start using Jesus as a benchmark for government policy, then let's use Jesus as a benchmark for ALL government policy, not just the items that we want to pick and choose.

Sure you wanna do that?

Posted by RW on May 18, 2006 07:17 AM Link to comment

Most Christians believe that Christ will return someday and make all of the government's policy decisions.

So from a Christian standpoint it makes sense to me that they would want to do now what they assume He will do then.

Maybe that is why many of them are taking the, "Sorry, I never knew you" position in regards to illegal immigrants.

Personally I prefer the, "when I was thirsty you gave me drink and when I was hungry you fed me" position but that is just me.

I don't make policy. I just live with whatever it is at the time.

Posted by Buck on May 18, 2006 09:10 AM Link to comment

So from a Christian standpoint it makes sense to me that they would want to do now what they assume He will do then.

Well, good, then.
When do we start having sermons from the oval office? After all, one of the two most important commandments - from Jesus himself - was to love God with all your heart, and that means it's a lot more important than using the bully pulpit to discuss border patrols. That ought to go over well with the folks who profess a separation of church and state.

Next on the agenda: adultery. Then, out of wedlock births. Then, credit card legislation (the bible is big on paying your debts).

Personally I prefer the, "when I was thirsty you gave me drink and when I was hungry you fed me" position but that is just me.
I prefer it, as well. That's why Jesus looked to change hearts, not implement his teachings via governmental power, thus he wasn't demanding that Caesar mandate his prophesies.

Remember, you can't pick and choose if you're going down that avenue. What would Jesus think about partial birth abortion?

Posted by RW on May 18, 2006 09:41 AM Link to comment

**** Most Christians believe that Christ will return someday and make all of the government's policy decisions. *****

I doubt you could find ONE who thinks Christ will come back and take over the United States government, Buck. The bible is pretty clear on the second coming and assuming the presidency isn't on the agenda. Come on, let's stay on the same page.

Posted by RW on May 18, 2006 09:43 AM Link to comment

RW the Bible has more interpretations than the Constitution.

I once had a dear friend say to me, "I'll be glad when the Lord comes back so we won't have to pay all of these high utility bills". And he was as serious as a busted radiator hose when he said it.

You say that the Bible is pretty clear concerning the Second Coming. I would love you hear your understanding of it.

You say that Jesus looked to change hearts.

Change hearts from what to what?

And I think we would both agree that hearts cannot be changed by force.

Love God. Love your neighbor. Love yourself. That pretty much sums up my theology.

But in contrast, as a dear Christian friend of mine said to me the other day concerning illegal aliens, "those people are not my neighbors".

I know what I think Jesus would do but all I can do is what I can do and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by Buck on May 18, 2006 11:39 AM Link to comment

RW writes: " If you're going to start using Jesus as a benchmark for government policy, then let's use Jesus as a benchmark for ALL government policy, not just the items that we want to pick and choose."

My observation wasn't aimed at whether government policy *should* be based on Christian principles, but rather at whether and why Christians should support or be against specific government policies.

That is, *I* don't use WWJD as a benchmark, but many other people apparently do. *They* shouldn't pick and choose.

Posted by RSA on May 18, 2006 12:15 PM Link to comment

Actually, RSA, you're employing the age-old practice of assigning to what you think a "good" Christian should do, according to you. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion the biggest problem with Christianity are Christians and the biggest part of religion is the people supposedly practicing it, but you ARE picking and choosing what you think those folks should adopt. And, of course, if they don't adhere according to your interpretations, then they're hypocrites - while if they do in this case but overreach in a case where you don't want religion involved, then they want a theocracy. Heads you win, tails they lose.

A "good" Christian would, I'm guessing since I'm a born again believer, hope to change the attitudes of people so that they would WANT to help those in need and feed those who are hungry, yes. Don't know how that falls in line with people who are knowingly breaking the laws of our nation in order to enrich themselves (I guess it matters according to degree, since Ken Lay did the same thing on a much larger level).

Posted by RW on May 18, 2006 01:06 PM Link to comment

RW, you're right in that my argument could easily shade over into accusations of hypocrisy, and because I can't see into anyone else's soul, so to speak, I can't justify that.

Here's what is justifiable: Trying to persuade people to take your point of view, based on what you believe is important to them. If I were trying to sell amnesty for illegal immigrants, for example, to evangelical Christians, I'd make a fairly simple argument. In balancing mercy against lawfulness, against a reasonable standard of living, against dislike of outsiders, Jesus always came down on the mercy side (at least that's my impression). I think Jesus argued for a selflessness and a humility that are just inconsistent with blocking borders and saying, "This land and economy is ours, and we're not going to share it"--even if that meant everyone were to become dirt poor.

If this argument is wrong, then I'd like to know. If it's right but people just can't rise to that high standard, that would be good to know as well.

Posted by RSA on May 18, 2006 01:31 PM Link to comment

*****I think Jesus argued for a selflessness and a humility that are just inconsistent with blocking borders and saying, "This land and economy is ours, and we're not going to share it"--even if that meant everyone were to become dirt poor.***

Jesus argued for selflessness and humility, indeed, within each of our HEARTS. He did not challenge the political power structure of the day to adopt his principles, which is your premise. Heck, he did not even attempt to argue the case against crucifixion when given the opportunity in a face to face conversation with Pilate!
He didn't call on the gov't to command his people to follow him. He didn't call on the gov't to mandate his teachings into the law. He didn't call on Pilate to ensure that Jews would know that their messiah and deliverer had indeeed come via a proclamation from on high.
But, somehow, we Christians are to ASSume that Jesus would've told Pilate to make law pertaining to allowing illegalities when....well, when some folks decided it was okay. Even though he did nothing of the sort when the opportunity arose.

You know what the vast majority of the bible covers? The land around Israel, which seemingly is always under debate. Look it up: the majority of the bible revolves around land. The bible says that God has set it aside for his chosen people, but Jesus neglected to make sure that Pilate enacted it into law. After all, he could've, but he wanted US to LOVE via our own free will.

If you want to give your land to an illegal resident, go right ahead. It is quite presumptuous, IMO, to assume that a Christian should be calling on the gov't to do it, instead.

Posted by RW on May 18, 2006 06:48 PM Link to comment

"He did not challenge the political power structure of the day to adopt his principles, which is your premise."

Actually, it's more than a premise; it's an observation that applies to lots of evangelical leaders.

I can't comment on the rest, because I don't really get it. Oh, well. Thanks for what I did understand. I wish I'd gotten an answer to my original question of WWJD, though, if Jesus were Joe U.S. citizen.

Posted by RSA on May 19, 2006 11:15 AM Link to comment

I thought that it was clear that Jesus would not only welcome everyone - he hung out with whores and lepers, after all - but he would attempt to convince everyone to follow him.

VOLUNTARILY.

He probably wouldn't go running to the government and attempt to have the powers-that-be mandate his wishes.

****it's an observation that applies to lots of evangelical leaders.****

Anecdotal. I can say "Marion Barry" and you can say "Duke Cunningham" and we get nowhere.

Posted by RW on May 19, 2006 03:47 PM Link to comment

Thanks for the answer! That's pretty much what I'd hoped. I've read stories about evangelical Christians helping illegal immigrants and speaking out for them (without any necessary connection to government action); I think they're in the right.

When I responded to this line, "He did not challenge the political power structure of the day to adopt his principles, which is your premise," by saying that some evangelical leaders do just this, I was thinking of the political support and lobbying that some powerful evangelical Christians have given to address issues such as abortion, gay marriage, abstinence programs in schools, and so forth. If what you say is right, I wish these folks would refrain from challenging the political power structure.

Posted by RSA on May 19, 2006 04:47 PM Link to comment

Those folks have just as much right as you, me, Al Franken, smijer, or any other American to try to have their wishes translated into law. Just because you're a Christian it doesn't mean that you cast aside your rights as an American.

We *all* act on our principles. Joe Lieberman bases some of his on his Jewish heritage. John Kerry made no bones about the fact that his religion would help guide him were he elected (during one of the debates). Nothing wrong with that, at all.

The United Methodist Church does the same thing albiet on the opposite side...it's a very 'left wing' church. Although, I don't think either side's actual "churches" lobby....that's illegal. Although, we know which side campaigns from the pulpit, though.....

Posted by RW on May 20, 2006 09:32 AM Link to comment

Too many issues, too little time. . .I'll try to refine my point, perhaps, in a later post.

Posted by RSA on May 20, 2006 07:36 PM Link to comment