Comments on: Position Statement – Why the Name “ChristianGovernance?”

By: Ian Tuck

Ian Tuck — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:40:30 +0000

John M,
I agree things are getting worse and not just from a Christian point of view, from pretty much every point of view, I should think. But, a waist of time? No, I don’t think it is ever a waist of time to try and improve things for others. Christian influence in governance of families, communities, provincial and federal governments will help to restore prosperity and freedom as well as improving every aspect of society. This country was built on Christian principles and those very principles made it such a wonderful country, it is those very principles which have been steadily eroding and hence the crap hole our country is turning into.

” I didn’t see anywhere where Jesus or the apostles tried to influence the Roman government…” What about John the baptist? He lost his head over sharing his opinion regarding the leadership of government. He may not be a good example but consider the old testament and when leadership feared the Lord God the people prospered.

John, from a Christian stand point are we are our brother’s keeper? God asked Cain, where is Able and Cain replied “am I my brother’s keeper?” God never answered that question, but what answer do you get when you read the scriptures? I tend to think we are to look out for the well being of our neighbour/brother and Christian governance is a very good place to start, don’t you agree?

]]>

By: John M

John M — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:37:31 +0000

Ian / SE
I didn’t want to overly inject my own interpretation of the scriptures, but Yes, I think there is an element of not so much going “against” the scriptures, but then not really accepting the admonition that the governments are temporary.
It has been pointed out on this site that things are not staying “status quo”, but getting worse from a Christian point of view. Governments made by men will always fail until Christ has one kingdom over the whole earth. Only then will ChristianGovernance and self-governence work. So attempting to influence them or becoming part of them is really just a waste of time.
According to the scriptures they are all doomed to failure prior to being wiped out completely because “Satan is the ruler of this world”. (John 12:31, 2 Cor 4:4)

At least, that’s what I saw in the scriptures. I didn’t see anywhere where Jesus or the apostles tried to influence the Roman government – “Caesar’s things to Caesar. . .”

]]>

By: Ian Tuck

Ian Tuck — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:06:56 +0000

That is interesting stuff John M. Maybe I am thick headed but I fail to grasp what your point is for going through all the trouble to post this, although I am wondering if because we challenge the status quo you are thinking we are going against these scriptures you researched.

]]>

By: John M

John M — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:15:45 +0000

It is not yet time for God’s kingdom, self-government, or Christian rule. God has his own schedule, and your impatience with Him is impetuous.

Jer 10:23: I know, O LORD, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.

Titus 3:1: Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers. . .

Romans 13:1-7:
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

]]>

By: TimBloedow

TimBloedow — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:06:17 +0000

Hi Shelley,
You raise an important point regarding the real-world application of Christian principles in politics. You are right, there are some shared principles between Christianity and other worldviews. Sometimes parts of principles are shared. Christianity condemns murder, and probably today still most Canadians do, but they don’t apply this objection to murder to unborn children the way Christians should. On another issue, the Bible clearly teaches restitution, and in terms of this word, I can find much affirmation among non-Christians, but when one gets into the substance and what a just approach to restitution looks like in the Bible compared with what it looks like in Aboriginal communities or within today’s secularist social worker ethos, we might find that there is not as much shared beliefs as we initially hoped when we noted that we use the same word. So we have to do our homework to see how much really is shared between Christians and non-Christians.
But another major purpose I have in emphasizing the Christian source of important principles for governing our society and government, even if they are shared by others, is that substantial ignorance on this point among Christians and non-Christians has resulted in most of us not realising that many valuable principles for the just and peaceable functioning of society and a democratic politics come from Christianity, including many principles of general equity. It has become part of accepted wisdom that these best practices for society are secular and humanistic, and that Christianity is a threat to them. As a result, these culturally dominant people are increasingly marginalizing Christians and becoming intolerant of public expressions of Christianity. And Christians don’t know how to fight back against this because even many of us have forgotten the Christian roots of these important principles of equity, liberty and justice. So it is to correct these errors and imbalanced views that is a key part of my motivation in highlighting the Christian roots – Christian both historically and theologically – of the best principles we have for operating a civilized society – after all they came from God Himself, revealed in His Word to us.
You ask what about those who may want to emphasize shared knowledge and beliefs rather than asserting the Christian nature of such things. I would say firstly that if the motivation for doing this is fear, then it’s wrong/sinful because we should never be ashamed of Christ or God’s truth. But additionally, I maintain that because Christianity is a worldview, the legitimate beliefs and evidence/facts you have to make an argument are also part of a Christian argument. The references to God in an argument are not the only Christian components of that argument. The totality of a legitimate argument is truthful and therefore Christian. It may not be necessary every time you open your mouth to articulate the explicit Biblical or Christian source or aspect of an argument, but you should always ask yourself honestly why you are leaving that out to make sure it’s not from wrong motives. I hope these additional thoughts are helpful.

]]>

By: Shelley

Shelley — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:37:54 +0000

Hmm. 1st time exposure to the concept, so barely pondered it.
I totally agree most Christians are afraid to integrate, in an outward fashion, their Christian principles and politics.
So, many would just reject the idea simply for superficial reasons as they were impacted by the word, “Christian” prefacing “Government” and that is your basis for the label in order to numb that effect.
However, wouldn’t the affiliates of other religions that looked deeper conclude that their religion / many religions have similar principles to substantiate government ideals? That is, I think there are many shared principles. Then, each represented religion would choose to name it “MyReligionGovernment”? At that point we would be right back to just focusing on an agreed naming convention, I guess.
For immediate needs of change in policy Christians, such as myself, might be more inclined to advocate for the Christian based initiative while hiding the backing principle strictly in an effort not to exclude certain groups’ support. Now, if the immediate gratification of “keeping the secret” is going to squash some long term goal, I understand.
So, what am I missing in order not to conclude that the disclosure is only asking for trouble?
Oh, I’m looking @ this through a filter forced upon me by government over the last 6 months in which I’m not able to accept. Interesting ideas you have.
Shelley

]]>