Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Shall We Dance?
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
These past few weeks I’ve watched four movies that deal directly with the relationship between Christian faith and politics, and all four were thoughtful, provocative, and well-crafted stories.
Jesus Camp and Hell House are documentaries. Both are political in that Christians reveal beliefs that require new law (or court rulings) in order to see them realized, primarily beliefs in the evilness of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, abortion, alcohol and drug abuse, and in the case of Hell House, the dangers of non-Christian fantasy such as Harry Potter.
Jesus Camp documents the work of Becky Fischer, a Pentecostal pastor who runs the “Kids on Fire” church camp in North Dakota. She’s out to train a new generation of “Onward Christian Soldiers,” though instead of fighting racial slavery, they are supposed to take back America from the secular slavery these Christians evidently perceive.
Hell House is down south near Dallas,Texas, and presents a different way of creating more space for fundamentalist Pentecostals. Rather than training youth to become leaders that may be able to win positions of power in local or national government, this church is going to bring more people into the fold by scaring them into converting.
Both documentaries were pretty fair, avoiding caricatures, giving the subjects of the study a lot of room to express themselves without outside commentary. I have non-Christian friends who watched one or both of these and came away disturbed, worried about what they see as theocracy. I imagine, calling on memories of my Christian fundamentalist period, that some Christians could watch these films and say “Yes!”
For my part, I think both represent fringe and ephemeral movements, yet the politics of both intrigue me–grass roots movements via religion to gain more supporters for “traditional values.”
The other two I watched may seem very different (and here I expose my German Protestant roots): Bonhoeffer and Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace. The first is a documentary of one of the few Christian leaders in Germany to openly (and covertly) resist Hitler and Nazism, and who paid for it with his life. The second is a fictionalized version of the same story. Both are definitely worth watching, though I preferred the documentary because the other had some uneven acting and story-telling.
The big question in both, and one relevant today, is when is it right for Christians to oppose their government (i.e. break laws), and what forms of opposition are acceptable? Bonhoeffer is invited to join an underground movement which necessitates lying, and perhaps even murder (and in “Agent of Grace,” one person is willing to be a suicide bomber!). But what if you are shown documents that prove that Hitler is killing political opponents and butchering the Jews and others? There’s the religious and political dilemma.
These two may seem very different from Jesus Camp and Hell House, but what connects all four for me is the matter of how Christians who are deeply opposed to their government and even society work to change that government and society.
Written by Ayschlay
Big Mo Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pmVisit Big Mo
Ayschlay, very well-written and thought-out. I’ve been thinking of something along these lines as well, as I have read Bonhoeffer’s book “The Cost of Discipleship.” Paul tells us that we’e to obey human institutions and follow the law, and remember he was writing when men and women were being killed by Roman soldiers for following Jesus Christ and refusing to bow to the so-called divinity of the Roman emperor.
It’s not something that I understand fully: were, for example, the founding fathers on biblically sound footing by rebelling against the crown? Is it OK for individuals to rise up against an unjust government and overthrow it through violence and killing?
The biblical model doesn’t provide a perfect answer (at least that I know of) because it has more to do with men and women, while obeying a nation’s laws, refusing to deny Christ and live in an unbiblical manner.
There are some evangelical preachers–John Macarthur, for example–who argue that Christians must never engage in political acts of violnce or revolution against the government (which means that he would not have supported the Revolution). A study explaining his interpretation can be found here:
http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=study&aid=230069
There are other preachers and evangelicals, of course, who see it as their biblical duty to fight oppression wherever they see it. (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan–and even Jimmy Carter, believe it or not–I think are of this type.)
Who is right? I don’t quite know. Anyway, good and thought-provoking post. Thanks!
Ayschlay Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 11:25 pmVisit Ayschlay
Big Mo,
Thanks for the MacArthur link; I’ll check it out.
If you can, watch one of these movies, and then see how you might answer your own questions.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 7:53 amVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
I must admit I haven’t seen any of these films, but I have seen something showing how bad the Hell Camp movie is supposed to be. Frankly, it never interested me.
I am intrigued by the movie about the German man though, and will try to view both.
If you recall from your “German Protestant roots” we are instructed, as Big Mo says, to pay respect to those in power. We are instructed to pray for them.
Quakers do not participate in our government, although Nixon was an exception. Mennonites are not encouraged to participate in voting, but are not forbidden to do so either. They are forbidden to join the armed forces but must serve in the police force or something else like that for a comparable period of time.
If you recall, about a month ago I made a post stating two people had found the Lord and I had had a hand in facilitating that. I was and still am ecstatic by it, especially when I am told by one they are studying their Bibles and have questions about what they are studying. They know I am a phone call away and will answer to the best of my ability to help them understand but will also refer them to their pastor to confirm what I have said.
Just last night I was asked about a verse in Matthew that instructs us to keep our eye on the prize as it were, but we had to do a little research for me to find the right verse in Luke that explained what the person in question was stuck on. Basically, if we strive so hard to make money we are not looking to God, and the things of earth are temporary while the things of God are permanent.
While leading these two beloved people to the Lord I did not scare them into it by giving them hell fire and brimstone, although I believe that, but telling them of the great Love of God that He would do for us what He did in spite of our deliberately sinning. I tried to show the love of God rather than the wrath of God, but both sides exist. God is slow to wrath, though.
Politics: Contrary to what you may believe about me, my friends and I in church don’t sit around discussing politics or how we should all vote to keep out the “bad” guys. We talk of regular things as anyone else who are friends would talk. When in a group we may discuss the Lord if the gathering is for that purpose, or if we have a question we want to bounce off each other about something we just discovered in the Bible and it has made us think.
This happened just this week with a friend calling me to ask my opinion on what a couple of words meant, if they meant something different.
I believe I have a responsibility to join in on the election of my government and those who govern me. That is separate from my faith, but of course my faith influences it in that I want pro-life people rather than pro-abortion people in charge.
I do not want a minister for president or for any position in government although I think Mike Huckabee is a great speaker. I still feel once someone has dedicated his life to serving the Lord in a pastoral role he should stay out of politics as far as running for office. You can’t serve two masters as you will love one and hate the other. That was the lesson of the question my friend had last night.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:19 amVisit Ayschlay
Responding to Big Mo’s link to John MacArthur. . . .
Based on a literal reading of the King James Version of Romans 13: 1-7, MacArthur argues the separatist position. Christians are not to be out in the political fray but rather spending their energies saving souls.
He makes some other interesting claims in his sermons. Here’s one:
“To some people, evangelical Christianity was a proper justification for the American Revolution. They believe we had every right to load up our guns and kill Englishmen for the sake of our religious freedom….The truth is, the United States was born out of a violation of Romans 13:1-7 in the name of Christian freedom.”
It’s hard to argue with this. American colonial rebels clearly didn’t follow Romans 13.
What then are we to make of all the Old Testament stories where God castigates kings and their governments for their poor or rapacious rule, where it’s understandable why the people would rebel?
Exodus is about an entire people rejecting the authority of the Pharaoh, and, with the help of God, abandoning Egypt.
There are all those bad kings that the people criticize, complain to God about, and even resist (King Ahab, among many others).
There are all those prophets loudly criticizing and challenging the rulers, though maybe since they are sent by God, and since they pre-date the author of Romans, they don’t violate the scripture?
In the New Testament we have the story of Stephen (Acts 7), who broke the law and was stoned to death. He’s a hero, though, though he also violated the injunction in Romans. Even MacArthur thinks Stephen was in the right .
And there’s all those later martyrs–heroes of the faith, heroic in their defiance of the state.
So, there must be some line that a ruler or government can cross that sends the Romans anti-politics rule out the window.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:29 amVisit ~J~
When Jesus died and was resurrected we were no longer under the law of Moses. We became under the Rule of Grace. I just read the verses you cited and a quick reading of my study notes with it do not coincide with what John MacArthur is teaching.
I would urge you to get a good study Bible and read what the modern religious scholars have to say about these things.
Different denominations believe different things. I am not prohibited from voting in my church and these very verses state what I’ve been saying all along. No person gets into office except by the permission of God.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:31 amVisit Ayschlay
In response to J (#3),
No, I don’t think of you and other Christians as constantly plotting politics. I think documentaries like Jesus Camp and Hell House may amplify one particular facet of some Christians’ lives, and an audience might forget that a church camp, a fiery sermon, or a haunted house, make up only a part of their daily ordinary lives.
I have a Pentecostal sister, another that’s an evangelical, and a Lutheran pastor for a brother. None of them are any weirder than I am.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:32 amVisit ~J~
You changed your comment a bit. I agree we shouldn’t be concentrated on running for office. I basically said that in my first comment, but if I vote am I concentrating on nothing but voting and not concentrating on eternal matters? I believe I am not.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:35 amVisit ~J~
Maybe you didn’t change your comment before your last one but I just skimmed over it. Trying to get out of here for you know what.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:37 amVisit ~J~
One big quibble. Christians don’t save souls. Jesus does that through His death and resurrection. We just lead them to Christ with the big help of the Holy Spirit.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:40 amVisit Ayschlay
J, I disagree with MacArthur but I think his sermon is a intriguing literal take on Romans, and he raises a crucial issue: how are people to reconcile human law with their idea of divine law?
How do you read the Romans passage? Or, how do you respond to MacArthur’s perspective? Are you a literalist too? If so, do other scriptures override Romans? Or maybe this passage has to read within the context of the entire letter? Or in the context of the author’s time (ergo abandoning the literal approach)?
For my part, I don’t read the Bible in a literal way, and I think human notions of divine (or even natural) law are shaped in powerful ways by the times and the environment.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 8:41 amVisit Ayschlay
I’m heading out, too. Adios.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 9:08 amVisit ~J~
Everything should be read in context, and I am a literalist unless it says it’s a parable which means it’s an illustration teaching us a lesson, which still means I get something from it.
However, when Man’s law is in conflict with God’s law then God’s law is the Supreme law and the one to be obeyed even if it means death.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmVisit Ayschlay
So we are to read Romans 13:1-7 literally and in context, but what’s the context?
Or, J, or anyone reading this, how do you read this passage? What meaning do you take from it? On what basis do you interpret it in a particular way?
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pmVisit ~J~
You are to obey man’s laws unless they conflict with God’s laws. That’s what I take from it and it’s been a few hours and a few words since I read that passage.
We are to respect our elected leaders and elsewhere we are told to pray for them.
It’s not brain surgery I’m talking about here as I see it as simply as it was written. When we try hard to think ourselves through things that aren’t there we get into more of a turmoil about it.
I disagree with MacArthur’s interpretation and gave you my reasons.
Now let me throw the question back to you. What do you get out of it? Remember, I used a study Bible when I made my comment originally on this, but just reading it in the NASB version I was able to understand what Paul was saying.
Read the whole chapter or the whole book of Romans if it helps you because it certainly can’t hurt.
~J~ Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pmVisit ~J~
If you want to read the NASB version or any of the other more popular versions written in easier to understand English without diminishing the meaning, and don’t have one of those Bibles on hand go to our verse of the day and under it you will see Bible Gateway. Click on that, choose your version and read and study the scholars’ notes on this. They will tell you some say this and others say that but the consensus (there’s that word again) is whatever.
Ayschlay Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pmVisit Ayschlay
J, thanks, but I do use the Gateway–usually the New American Standard.
It’s not that I don’t or can’t understand the passage. I want to know how you and others read it. If it’s so plain and so easy–why do you and MacArthur disagree? Also, where does it say in that passage that when human law contradicts God’s law, then you are to violate human law? Are you thinking of other passages?
I’ve got to take off for Michigan, but I’ll post my take on this passage later.
~J~ Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 5:06 amVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
I rented Bonhoeffer Sunday night and have watched most of it. I find it to be a very interesting story. I couldn’t find the fictionalized version at the local Blockbuster so I ordered it from Amazon.com.
I may not get to watch that until next week as we are heading out to Texas on Friday and will return next Monday.
Our pastor has spoken of Mr. Bonhoeffer, telling us what he did to help save the Jews.
I can now better understand why the Jewish people had such a bad feeling toward the Roman Catholic church, since it turns out it was the future Pope Pius XII who signed the agreement with the Germans to keep quiet about what the Germans were doing to the Jews during the Holocaust.
Very interesting story and I look forward to watching the rest and the fictionalized version to compare how they tell the story.
Thanks for telling us about these films.
Ayschlay Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 6:54 amVisit Ayschlay
J, I’m glad you enjoyed Bonhoeffer. You’ll see some different parts of his life in the dramatized version.
There’s a big debate going on over the role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust. Some have called Pius XII “Hitler’s Pope” while others have argued that the Church had to be careful because the Nazis reacted with more violence to any attempt by priests or bishops to help those targeted by the Hitler regime. Another movie suggestion: Amen, a story about a priest (fictionalized) and a German officer (based on actual person) who tried to expose the Holocaust.
~J~ Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 7:30 amVisit ~J~
From the documentary I saw the people were actually worshipping and praying to Hitler, so any religion was in jeopardy. The Catholic Church made a deal to allow them to continue to have their churches, but in the end they allowed so many fellow-men and women to die.
I never fully realized the basis for the hard feelings by the Jewish people, but this was a cardinal who later became the Pope who cut this deal with Hitler. Now I understand their feelings and am glad the Pope (JPII or Benedict XVI)apologized for the church’s part in it. He at least acknowledged it.
Guss Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 8:44 amVisit Guss
You guys need to get a room.