http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/06/11/you-cant-deny-people-their-rights-and-be-nice-about-it/

5. It is both politically and theologically imperative to assert that totalitarianism promulgates a doctrine that is incompatible with a Christian understanding of humanity and historical destiny.

Totalitarianism and its various cousins (notably emperor worship) have been around forever. How did God's people respond in the past, and how are we to respond today? What is the imperative? Did the early church do more than just preach the gospel of Christ's lordship?

6. Democratic government is limited government. It is limited in the claims it makes and in the power it seeks to exercise. Democratic government understands itself to be accountable to values and to truths which transcend any regime or party.

If I recall, democratic government understands itself to be accountable to the values and will of the people, not to transcendent truth. It is this fundamental aspect of democracy that makes the discussion about the "common good" and defending conservative truths rather silly. Liberal democracy is premised on human choice (with exception to clear physical and emotional harm). Anything else that could be perceived as a negative influence on society is excluded. Otherwise, why don't we also advocate laws that ban all drugs, premarital sex, clubs, etc.? Because that would be ridiculous, and despite what you may think, it would be undemocratic and imposing Christian morality (no matter how truthful and beneficial). And it would prevent any reception of the gospel.

7. Limited government means that a clear distinction is made between the state and the society. The state is not the whole of the society, but is one important actor in the society. Other institutions—notably the family, the church, educational, economic, and cultural enterprises—are at least equally important actors in the society.

Limited government has no bearing on other institutions. It means that the government is not the absolute sovereign over the people. They retain a broad range of rights and liberties. It does not mean that other institutions are responsible for the governance and administration of all aspects of society not governed by the state.

9. Everything short of the consummation of the rule of Christ is unsatisfactory.

In what way? Certainly we shouldn't place our hope in existing governments, nor should we expend all of our effort into creating utopia on earth. Neither should we view the consummation of Christ's rule as our work to complete.

10. Democratic governance is based upon a morality of respect and fairness for all. It is responsive to the diverse moral judgments and meanings affirmed by individuals and institutions within society. It not only tolerates but rigorously protects those spheres within which people find meaning for their lives and share that meaning with others. Most importantly, democratic government does not seek to control or restrict the sphere of religion in which people affirm, exercise, and share their ultimate beliefs about the world and their place in it.



If this is the case, then the arguments against gay marriage are entirely invalid. Abortion is another case, but if this holds, then lifestyle choices are off the table. Politics has no place in dictating such, unless there is clear physical or emotional harm.

11. Human rights are not established by the state. The state is bound to acknowledge and respect those rights which have their source in the transcendent dignity of the human person created by God.


Human rights are a tricky issue. Though everyone will affirm that human rights are intrinsic, what exactly do those rights entail? Ultimately, human rights are defined by humans. Read over the UNDHR (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights). Most of those rights are really civil, derived not from a sense of divine image, but from Western perspectives of what constitutes dignity and happiness. As the Deists were eager to affirm, the right to life, liberty, and property were the chief of those rights (with the right to work being added by the UN). These are man-made rights, not divine. There are only divine obligations, not rights (look throughout Scripture, there is no right to live, only a prohibition against killing and an obligation to give aid to those who are sick, weak, poor, etc.).

12. Those of us who are blessed to live under relatively democratic governments are stewards of a possibility that is to be preserved for the whole world. Democracy is not an achievement secured but an experiment to be advanced. It is both gift and task. In helping to sustain the democratic experiment, the churches act not only in their own interest but in the interest of humankind.

The church never received a commission to support or oppose governments. Democracy is neither divinely sanctioned nor eternally promised. Remember that God reigns over a kingdom. We are fortunate to live in democratic societies, but it is no privilege. Our task is not to promote liberal democracy, but to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Now, not to belabor the point, but in the history of the church political engagement, within a democracy or otherwise, has at times very much amounted to just what I describe in my statement. That those making the effort wouldn't express their intentions in quite the same words I used doesn't make the statement a straw man.

Of course it helps if we agree on what we mean by "political engagement".

I am not sure about the value of the statement, "it is not the mission of the church to make non-Christians behave as if they were Christians." This seems like it could be a bit of a straw man in that I am not sure who would ever frame political engagement as trying "to make non-Christians behave as if they were Christians." On the other hand, if the concern is that we will think it our goal to turn American into a Christian nation, I agree that this is not our mission. In my public and political engagement I try to avoid using the Bible even if I am commending a Christian standard.

I appreciated how Mark Coppenger (professor of Christian apologetics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) summarized Christian engagement: “As we make our case for liberty, we need to show our logic, expose the illogicality of our foes, link arms with co-belligerents, exhibit dignity in the face of indignities, and make it very clear that there are limits to our flexibility.”

But it's helpful to remember that, ”Politics is a field in which the consequences of culture play out; it is not the field in which the culture itself is formed.” (David Bahnsen)

You might find this interesting: Christians and Government: 12 points for reflection, http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/christians-and-government-12-points-for-reflection/

On the other hand governments do have a God given responsibility with regards to the behavior of citizens (See Romans 13:4 - but you knew that) and the form of governement makes no difference to that responsibility. To the extent the citizen has a role in government the citizen shares in that responsibility. The Christian citizen has no more or no less responsibility, and authority, than any other citizen. You would expect the Christian citizen to be rather better informed as to what actually constitutes good and what is evil, and you would expect that to make a difference to such input into government as the Christian is able to make.

Just a couple things to remember though: 1. Christians can live as Christians with or without democracy. I very much prefer it, but scripture doesn't demand it, or give me reason to think a voice in government is an absolute right 2. In a representative democracy, especially a large, complex one like ours, it is not precisley accurate to say the the citizens are the government. The ordinary citizen has a responsibility, but a limited one.

Line of the week. I'll take my unfair stereotypes skewered, thank you very much.