Should clergymen criticise the government?

I think it conflicted that he can say what he does, while being an unelected member of the House of Lords and being outspoken against it's reform.

There's no real reason to abide what he says any more than in what an Imam, Rabbi or Pope would say. 

The church should not use the physical government to promote its spiritual cause.  However, the church does have the obligation to also help the people with their physical needs as well.

Christians should never use the establishment of the government for the purpose of propagating the message of Jesus Christ. That would be the purpose of the church itself and the family.  This is not to say the Christian cannot work within the government to help improve the lives of the people.  However, as soon as one of them claims to be speaking on behalf of God or doing God's work within the government then I no longer think what they are doing to be right.

That said, within what position can a clergyman hold?  While I do not believe it is inherently wrong for the clergy to work within government, I do not believe the average clergyman deal with government issues.  We who are Christians claim to be from another kingdom, a spiritual kingdom ruled by God himself.  Unless there is the situation of there being true social injustice, the clergy should spend their time sharing the Gospel and raising disciples.

Example, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself both a Baptist minister and a social reformer who helped fight against racial injustice.  In this instance, I agree with his work.  However, if the preacher spends more time in the pulpit arguing against socialism then he needs to decide which kingdom he wishes to be apart of.

The church should not use the physical government to promote its spiritual cause.  However, the church does have the obligation to also help the people with their physical needs as well.

Christians should never use the establishment of the government for the purpose of propagating the message of Jesus Christ. That would be the purpose of the church itself and the family.  This is not to say the Christian cannot work within the government to help improve the lives of the people.  However, as soon as one of them claims to be speaking on behalf of God or doing God's work within the government then I no longer think what they are doing to be right.

That said, within what position can a clergyman hold?  While I do not believe it is inherently wrong for the clergy to work within government, I do not believe the average clergyman deal with government issues.  We who are Christians claim to be from another kingdom, a spiritual kingdom ruled by God himself.  Unless there is the situation of there being true social injustice, the clergy should spend their time sharing the Gospel and raising disciples.

Example, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself both a Baptist minister and a social reformer who helped fight against racial injustice.  In this instance, I agree with his work.  However, if the preacher spends more time in the pulpit arguing against socialism then he needs to decide which kingdom he wishes to be apart of.

mindstorm

That reply seems to be full of contradiction.

You Christians are from the same kingdom as us atheists! 

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

The church should not use the physical government to promote its spiritual cause.  However, the church does have the obligation to also help the people with their physical needs as well.

Christians should never use the establishment of the government for the purpose of propagating the message of Jesus Christ. That would be the purpose of the church itself and the family.  This is not to say the Christian cannot work within the government to help improve the lives of the people.  However, as soon as one of them claims to be speaking on behalf of God or doing God's work within the government then I no longer think what they are doing to be right.

That said, within what position can a clergyman hold?  While I do not believe it is inherently wrong for the clergy to work within government, I do not believe the average clergyman deal with government issues.  We who are Christians claim to be from another kingdom, a spiritual kingdom ruled by God himself.  Unless there is the situation of there being true social injustice, the clergy should spend their time sharing the Gospel and raising disciples.

Example, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself both a Baptist minister and a social reformer who helped fight against racial injustice.  In this instance, I agree with his work.  However, if the preacher spends more time in the pulpit arguing against socialism then he needs to decide which kingdom he wishes to be apart of.

RationalAtheist

That reply seems to be full of contradiction.

You Christians are from the same kingdom as us atheists! 

Yes I participate in within this world and its kingdom, but my king is Christ and his kingdom is the church. :P

To rephrase my statement simply, the Christian is allowed to work within government but to promote social justice but not his own spiritual endeavors (though, his spiritual endeavors might be the end goal). The clergyman should have his time spent preaching the Gospel by way of the church, not by way of the government.

There is a very thin line between the two and to an extent should be judged on a case-by-case basis.mindstorm

Enough of this meaningless "cleric-speak"! According to your own doctrine, your God created all of us; even the atheists.

Perhaps you should have a chat with the "Christian Parties" in the UK, the US and elsewhere. Modern democratic politics has replaced the church as the arbiters of moral conduct and public dissemination in most places. What you regard Christians "should" or "should not" do is quite subjective - its just your own perception and not based on any Christian doctrine I know of. Martin Luther-King seems to have been successful by breaking your rules entirely! As does the "Arch-bish of Can't"!!

Your final admission shows clearly to me that your cogent argument does not really exist.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Yes I participate in within this world and its kingdom, but my king is Christ and his kingdom is the church. :P

To rephrase my statement simply, the Christian is allowed to work within government but to promote social justice but not his own spiritual endeavors (though, his spiritual endeavors might be the end goal). The clergyman should have his time spent preaching the Gospel by way of the church, not by way of the government.

There is a very thin line between the two and to an extent should be judged on a case-by-case basis.RationalAtheist

Enough of this meaningless "cleric-speak"! According to your own doctrine, your God created all of us; even the atheists.

Perhaps you should have a chat with the "Christian Parties" in the UK, the US and elsewhere. Modern democratic politics has replaced the church as the arbiters of moral conduct and public dissemination in most places. What you regard Christians "should" or "should not" do is quite subjective - its just your own perception and not based on any Christian doctrine I know of. Martin Luther-King seems to have been successful by breaking your rules entirely! As does the "Arch-bish of Can't"!!

Your final admission shows clearly to me that your cogent argument does not really exist.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

This statement has enough freedom for someone like Martin Luther King Jr. to work and yet means the clergyman's power within government should be limited.

Despite what my own denomination states on this issue, this is an issue the church at large simply disagrees over.  This is why I approach this with an almost subjective stance.  I do indeed believe there is a definite answer, I am just not certain that we in our sin are capable of agreeing upon where the line should be drawn.

With regards to my talk of the Kingdom of God, only those who are Christians are a part of that heavenly kingdom.  To be a part of God's creation does not necessitate that one belongs to the kingdom.

I agree that there is a subjective element to this.  However, I do attempt to base my understanding of this in both Scripture and history.  I as a Baptist hold to the Seperation of Church and State, something of which is not always the case with Reformed theology (which I hold dear) and the Church of England.  What is the "official" doctrine of the Southern Baptist denomination on this issue?  Here is what article XVII states:

mindstorm

When are you part of the heavenly kingdom? Now? Why not all of us? How would you define a "kingdom"? Why do you wish to seperate yourself from others who believe something different by having your own kingdom in this life?

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

This statement has enough freedom for someone like Martin Luther King Jr. to work and yet means the clergyman's power within government should be limited.

mindstorm

It seems to me as if it was cribbed from post-revolution American-focused politics, rather than from biblical prophesy. It also rather shows why people like Martin Luther-King should not have done what they did - since it seems to be in direct contravention of the "Southern Baptist rules" (mentioning political opposition to slavery that was condoned in the Christian bible).

 

Despite what my own denomination states on this issue, this is an issue the church at large simply disagrees over.  This is why I approach this with an almost subjective stance.  I do indeed believe there is a definite answer, I am just not certain that we in our sin are capable of agreeing upon where the line should be drawn.

mindstorm

You think there is a definite answer, but don't know what it is - so you say... But your view of us all having "sin" (including the politicians and evangelists) means we are unable to make that decision for ourselves. How helpless! I dislike intensely the view that disrepespects human reasoning and puts forward a consequently confused and irrational perspective that seems to make no sense at all instead.

When are you part of the heavenly kingdom? Now? Why not all of us? How would you define a "kingdom"? Why do you wish to seperate yourself from others who believe something different by having your own kingdom in this life?

RationalAtheist

It's not a matter of seeking to seperate myself with the rest of the world but seeking to align myself with a holy and seperate God.

It seems to me as if it was cribbed from post-revolution American-focused politics, rather than from biblical prophesy. It also rather shows why people like Martin Luther-King should not have done what they did - since it seems to be in direct contravention of the "Southern Baptist rules" (mentioning political opposition to slavery that was condoned in the Christian bible).

RationalAtheist

As I tried to point out, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Christian seeking to do social good by means of the government.

You think there is a definite answer, but don't know what it is - so you say... But your view of us all having "sin" (including the politicians and evangelists) means we are unable to make that decision for ourselves. How helpless! I dislike intensely the view that disrepespects human reasoning and puts forward a consequently confused and irrational perspective that seems to make no sense at all instead.

RationalAtheist

I am indeed slightly hesitant to give a definite answer simply because I do not know what it is.  Outside of basic history classes I have never actually studied politics.  Sure I will watch the news and know the various positions denominations have on this subject, but I simply am not studied enough on certain aspects of politics.  

Also, you do not seem to understand what I mean by us being sinners.  Even as a partial Calvinist I will state that the worst of sinners is capable of social good.  To be a sinner does not mean the individual is incapable of reason and good works, but he is indeed incapable of reaching to God's standard of perfection.  There exists no man but Christ who is capable of doing true spiritual good apart from God's direct intervention. 

In other words, even the totally depraved sinner will still walk an old lady across the street.

It's not a matter of seeking to seperate myself with the rest of the world but seeking to align myself with a holy and seperate God.

mindstorm

Didn't God create the rest of the world, according to you? Isn't your heavenly kingdom yet to come (so you hope)? Aren't you still in (what you think is) God's corporeal kingdom with me now? 

As I tried to point out, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Christian seeking to do social good by means of the government.

mindstorm

Oh, I thought you were trying to point out that there was. You did say that Christians were not supposed to do "God's work" through the government. The government is largely set up to help people, so are you saying that Christians in government should explicitly not help anyone because it would contradict with your Southern Baptist rules? 

I am indeed slightly hesitant to give a definite answer simply because I do not know what it is.  Outside of basic history ****s I have never actually studied politics.  Sure I will watch the news and know the various positions denominations have on this subject, but I simply am not studied enough on certain aspects of politics.

mindstorm

I'm glad I picked you up on this then, because your initial response did seem to have several answers contradicting each other. Thanks for clearing it up. It only leaves me to wonder why you did respond, if not only to advertise your perculiar brand of Christianity...

Also, you do not seem to understand what I mean by us being sinners.  Even as a partial Calvinist I will state that the worst of sinners is capable of social good.  To be a sinner does not mean the individual is incapable of reason and good works, but he is indeed incapable of reaching to God's standard of perfection.  There exists no man but Christ who is capable of doing true spiritual good apart from God's direct intervention. 

In other words, even the totally depraved sinner will still walk an old lady across the street.

mindstorm

I think I understand only too well what you mean by us being "sinners". I think you debase yourself with this inherited guilt as a means not to dispute the hard-core dogma you feed yourself. I find this personally irresponsible, potentially highly-dangerous and psychologically damaging. After all, how could one cast in such original sin hope to understand their own plight, or even make decisions for themselves, etc?

I think you see the old lady in need of help walking across the street as being a "totally depraved sinner" too. Is that right?

Didn't God create the rest of the world, according to you? Isn't your heavenly kingdom yet to come (so you hope)? Aren't you still in (what you think is) God's corporeal kingdom with me now?

RationalAtheist

"And he said, 'With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.'"

John the Baptist introduces Jesus in Mark 1:15 with, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."  This spiritual kingdom first begins with the first coming of the king.  However, the culmination of this kingdom is not until Christ returns.  Between those two periods of time it is the citizens of the kingdom's job to enlarge the kingdom by way of bring people to salvation through Christ.

The kingdom of God is both now and not yet.  Or rather, it has begun but has not fully culminated.

Oh, I thought you were trying to point out that there was. You did say that Christians were not supposed to do "God's work" through the government. The government is largely set up to help people, so are you saying that Christians in government should explicitly not help anyone because it would contradict with your Southern Baptist rules? 

RationalAtheist

One can do God's work within the government when seeking to do social justice.  One cannot do God's work within the government when seeking to bring people into saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I'm glad I picked you up on this then, because your initial response did seem to have several answers contradicting each other. Thanks for clearing it up. It only leaves me to wonder why you did respond, if not only to advertise your perculiar brand of Christianity...

RationalAtheist

To give the answer to the question that can be summed up in the simple statement "probably not." 

I think I understand only too well what you mean by us being "sinners". I think you debase yourself with this inherited guilt as a means not to dispute the hard-core dogma you feed yourself. I find this personally irresponsible, potentially highly-dangerous and psychologically damaging. After all, how could one cast in such original sin hope to understand their own plight, or even make decisions for themselves, etc?

I think you see the old lady in need of help walking across the street as being a "totally depraved sinner" too. Is that right?

RationalAtheist

Even still, you seem to be taking the claim that we are all sinners in directions I would not claim.  I believe we are made in the image of a perfect and holy God, though corrupted, and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we are given tremendous worth in the eyes of God.  Our worth is not because of our intrinsic value but because God has given us worth.  If anything, such belief causes me to have a great love for all sinners.

As far as this woman crossing the street, she is indeed a totally depraved sinner but one loved by God to such a degree that Christ died for her.  It is my desire that she, and you even, would know the God that would die for her.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Didn't God create the rest of the world, according to you? Isn't your heavenly kingdom yet to come (so you hope)? Aren't you still in (what you think is) God's corporeal kingdom with me now?

mindstorm

"And he said, 'With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.'"

John the Baptist introduces Jesus in Mark 1:15 with, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."  This spiritual kingdom first begins with the first coming of the king.  However, the culmination of this kingdom is not until Christ returns.  Between those two periods of time it is the citizens of the kingdom's job to enlarge the kingdom by way of bring people to salvation through Christ.

The kingdom of God is both now and not yet.  Or rather, it has begun but has not fully culminated.

Rather than give a direct answer, you prefer to hide in your scriptures, then engage in your mystical "cleric-speak" again. From my view, they sound less meaningful than the stuff you've previously come out with yourself. Can I roughly infer from them that you are not in your own exclusive kingdom of God that you said you were in earlier, but back in a shared one with one or two atheists now?

One can do God's work within the government when seeking to do social justice.  One cannot do God's work within the government when seeking to bring people into saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

mindstorm

Some Southern Baptist exclusion clause, I presume? Isn't getting people to know God all part of Christian social welfare, anyway?

To give the answer to the question that can be summed up in the simple statement "probably not." 

mindstorm

I'd have thought they'd have as much right to criticise the government as any religious, or non-religious group, or anyone else. Their platform should be to their own audiences only, rather than being able to inflict their message on the rest of us, like the the OP's example of the Arch Bish of Can't. 

Even still, you seem to be taking the claim that we are all sinners in directions I would not claim.  I believe we are made in the image of a perfect and holy God, though corrupted, and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we are given tremendous worth in the eyes of God.  Our worth is not because of our intrinsic value but because God has given us worth.  If anything, such belief causes me to have a great love for all sinners.

As far as this woman crossing the street, she is indeed a totally depraved sinner but one loved by God to such a degree that Christ died for her.  It is my desire that she, and you even, would know the God that would die for her.

mindstorm

Perfection and holiness are concepts I find too nebulous and fluffy to entertain seriously. Your feelings of emotional warmth towards others are not unusual, or particular to your brand of faith, or faith at all, despite your seeming contradictions and dirty corruption, holy authority and "damaged goods" perspective.

I accept that your desires in changing others to believe what you do are key motivators to you. They would achieve some purpose for you in living the faith you have studied so hard since childhood if you ever were successful. (I personally don't think you are "preacher" material though.) But I also think such motivations are extremely sinister, unhealthy and only serve to devalue you as a person. I think it a waste and a shame for a person to become so embroiled in such a self-serving mission that their life, education and experience is limited as a result.

I'd much rather everyone thought for themselves. I hope you would too.