On my desk: City of Man
posted at 3:00 pm on October 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Or, more precisely, on my Kindle — about which more in a moment. In City of Man, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson and Commentary’s Peter Wehner attempt to guide the next generations of Christians through the shoals of political activism, faith, and partisanship. Instead of making specific policy arguments, they focus more on the history of Christian political involvement, its successes and failures, and the dangers to both politics and faith in remaining active or passive as Christians and as citizens in a free and secular government.
City of Man touches on a number of hot-button issues such as war, economics, and the structures of government, mainly to note just how little direction we actually get from the New Testament on any of them. The Old Testament created laws and political structures for its time, but Jesus spoke very little about government, economics, or statecraft. Instead, Gerson and Wehner note that the Scriptures speaks almost exclusively about “soulcraft,” leaving Christians to apply the precepts of human rights, charity, and how best to create an environment in which Christians can live in this world while preparing for the next.
The background information provided by Gerson and Wehner in the historical perspectives gives a good grounding for their argument for effective and selective activism. Their example of the civil-rights movement and the abdication of many Christians from the fight is the most profound argument for continued engagement in social and political activism, and perhaps the most compelling evidence for their argument that human rights depend on a bedrock of faith. That means that Christians and Jews have to remain engaged in foreign policy:
In the Christian view of human rights, human beings stand at the center of concern. This means that the sovereignty of the state is not absolute. The claims of human dignity are universal. Human worth is not determined by nationality, and the responsibility to care for human dignity is not bounded by borders. This belief requires the rejection of a simplistic foreign-policy “realism”: the notion that the internal conduct of foreign regimes is irrelevant to the conduct of American policy. America promotes human rights and human dignity for a realistic reason—because brutal nations tend to be aggressive nations. But we also promote human rights because there are moral as well as legal wrongs, and because some conduct is abnormal and inhuman.
Obviously, as Christian believers, Gerson and Wehner reject moral relativism and argues that America has to maintain its standing not just as a nation among peers but as a bulwark of moral authority, which “liberalism” cannot provide:
These trends have opened up a tension at the heart of modern liberalism, whose greatest achievements have lain precisely in the realm of human rights: the Seneca Falls Declaration, which demanded women’s rights; the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery; the Nineteenth Amendment, securing the right to vote; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation. Yet just as our bloody modern history has made the idea of human rights more essential than ever, academic liberalism has become infected by the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism that render any moral commitment to human rights unexplainable.
The book also argues for a limitation of explicitly Christian activism to those issues that touch on faith, rather than issues where faith has little or no resonance. The danger, say the authors, is twofold. First, overpoliticization of faith-based organizations tends to reduce the doctrinal credibility of the organization, whether that be an individual minister, a church or an entire sect. Secondly, the farther one moves away from doctrine and into areas where the church and the faith have little solid ground for claims of expertise, they lose their political credibility as well.
Towards the end, Gerson and Wehner discuss the always-important issue of tone. It is not enough, they argue, to argue for Christian values and beliefs; one must argue as a Christian as well. While Jesus never outlined an approved form of government to His disciples, He did leave one important law for Christians to honor, which is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Fire-breathing hyperbole harms the cause in two ways: people ignore it, and it does little to demonstrate that the effort to engage comes out of love and not some other, less positive impulse.
At 144 pages, this book moves very quickly. Some of the arguments in the book won’t necessarily appeal to Christians who see the field of engagement as total and complete, and there is certainly plenty of room for debate; I don’t agree with everything written in City of Man, but every argument is well framed. I wondered whether Gerson and Wehner would argue for more political moderation in this book, in the way that Rick Warren seems to do, but instead they use Warren more as an example of moderation of tone and approach rather than policy. The first generation of modern Christian activists have mainly stepped aside, and the authors see this as an opening to recalculate the movement and to find the leaders that will focus on the true intersection of faith and politics and find ways to succeed. It’s definitely intriguing, worthwhile, and a stimulating journey, which I recommend strongly to all.
Addendum: After seven years of blogging, I had almost stopped book reading entirely. Blogging is a process that takes up a considerable amount of attention, and I used to tell myself and others that I had no time left for book reading. Three weeks ago, I bought a Kindle for the First Mate, mainly because the selection of audio books for her was small and the commercial titles rather expensive in CD or cassette format; even the Braille Library is limited in newer releases. The Kindle has a text-to-speech function that works with most Kindle books, and since she’s already used to the computer-generated voice with her PC, she took to it enthusiastically.
After playing with it for a couple of days to get it set up for her use, I decided to buy one for myself — and I love it. In the past couple of weeks, I have read The Road to Serfdom, City of Man, Peter Ferrara’s President Obama’s Tax Piracy, re-read The Three Musketeers, The Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, and bought the subscription to Reason. (The classics can usually be found for free or for under a dollar.) It’s been a wonderful experience in diving back into what had once been my passion as a child and younger man, and I can’t recommend the experience more highly. Right now, I’m in the middle of A Shattered Peace by David Andelman, a book about the Versailles Treaty and its repercussions all the way to today.
I chose the Kindle mainly because of the price and the text-to-speech feature, which the Sony and the Barnes & Noble devices didn’t have. Occasionally I get asked about the iPad, which also serves well as an e-book reader, but the iPad is more costly (around $600 to the Kindle’s $139) and has the backlighting that tires out my eyes. The 6″ Kindle is more portable and more convenient, at least for me.
Note: Sales made through the links in this post will result in small compensation to me at no additional cost to the consumer.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I didn’t choose the Kindle because they can take something you bought, paid for, and annotated:
unclesmrgol on October 10, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Politics + Religion == Bad juju. Look at Islam.
Dandapani on October 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM
But…you recommend books all the time. Are you sure you ever really stopped?
As for the Christian method of arguing, such a method does not preclude stating the evils your opponent or their proxies have spoken or done or allowed. What it does preclude is lying about what your opponent has spoken or done or allowed.
As for the Versailles Treaty, the Germans last month made their final payment on reparations to the French.
unclesmrgol on October 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM
My daughters each got a Kindle over the summer and love it, they have some of their school textbooks (for a lot cheaper than paper books!) and can carry around their whole library with them (they read a lot too).
I’m looking into getting one myself.
Cookies Mom on October 10, 2010 at 3:18 PM
The people who Jesus spoke to did not live in a democracy. The options that we have to become involved in government were not open to this group of people. We have the ability to be involved and should do so.
Rose on October 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM
I agree Kindle is a good thing but I also recommend the audible membership for anyone who likes or needs the books-on-tape releases. I listen when I work out and have listened to a big selection of books this summer and lost 30 pounds in the process. Heh, Michelle had nothing to do with it either. I am currently listening to The Roots of Obama’s Rage which is pretty interesting. I still like the Kindle too but I love that audible membership.
msmveritas on October 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Benevolent Kingship is the Christian ideal. Democracy is the means by which the corrupt peddle their wares to the ignorant at the expense of the productive. A TRUE republic is the ideal compromise between the two.
abobo on October 10, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Quite doubtful that the author(s) are suggesting some theocratic, militaristic system. Rather, how does our faith inform our political decisions (and, by extension, effect cultural change) as private citizens and politicians? This isn’t much different than any other decision-making philosophy, even secular. Everyone has a “worldview” which they operate from, though not everyone is conscious of them.
Bee on October 10, 2010 at 3:41 PM
I would submit that you have the obligation to be involved, and that said involvement should consider carefully your moral/ethical underpinnings. Here in the USA we try to separate our religion from our politics — sometimes to a fault. I still rankle at John F. Kennedy denying that his Catholicism would inform his Presidency, for the sake of the fundimentalist vote.
Of course, he was a Kennedy, so maybe he was telling the truth….
unclesmrgol on October 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Though it is necessary identify which parts of the Christian teaching apply to public policy and which are more appropriately practiced in the realm of private morality, in preparation for life in the next world.
dedalus on October 10, 2010 at 3:51 PM
I like my B&N Nook. I recently read 1984 for the first time and just finished Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I have a number of free classics B&N gave away free. I may look for this book as well now.
aikidoka on October 10, 2010 at 3:52 PM
O/T Ed, is there some place you can put a reminder for us to vote for your grant? I am old and forget stuff.
Cindy Munford on October 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Isaiah 5:23
“Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!”
Christians, get you political game on!
moochy on October 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Ed, I don’t know what your budget is, but the Audible Platinum account gives you two credits per month, with which you can get an astounding amount of content (e.g. the billion-hour unabridged Atlas Shrugs is only one credit). If you pay by the year, you get 24 credits about $250, which is a heck of a deal.
The Kindle is an Audible-friendly device, so you can play its content like the text-to-speech stuff.
sulla on October 10, 2010 at 4:17 PM
I. Love. My. Kindle!
My husband got it for me last Christmas, hoping to reduce the number of books piled everywhere.
I’ve since discovered new favorite indie authors, books that would never make it to a physical bookstore, that are almost all under $2.99 and usually $.99. Amazon also offers dozens of free books every month (subscribe to The Kindle Review http://ireaderreview.com to keep up), in addition to the free classics.
The Kindle is easy on your eyes and really reads just like a physical book. It also fits in my purse and can go everywhere with me. The new Kindle 3 is even smaller although it has the same sized screen.
It’s only drawback is that it doesn’t use the ePub format which is what most libraries use for their ebooks, so you can’t check ebooks out of the library.
Common Sense on October 10, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Gerson…….Ruling class…….and please at this point I don’t look to any of the clowns that tell us HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED to think or act.
Throw them out…..and all their “smarts”.
PappyD61 on October 10, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Another note: Though you can’t read .epub books directly on the Kindle, but you can convert them to Kindle-friendly .mobi format using the free Calibre app. It’s got a small learning curve, but I had titles converted and synced with the Kindle in just a few minutes.
sulla on October 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM
I found it after I looked in the vault.
Cindy Munford on October 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM
camoflage, or ‘know your enemy’, Mr Morrissey?
rayra on October 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Ed, my hubby’s sitting right here. When I saw the title of the book, (but before I even read your endorsement), I said to him, “I think I want a Kindle for Christmas. There are too many books out there I’m dying to read.”
I run across SO many great books I want to check out, but the thought of trotting to the library to find out they’re not in yet–or ordering them, waiting ten days, paying a tidy price and then having them pile up on my nightstand–gives me pause. Just like iTunes revolutionized the way I enjoy music, I bet the Kindle would make me feel the same way about books.
Additionally, I have a literary agent representing my fiction. She reads her clients’ unpubbed work on her Kindle. That appeals to me as well, since I have many writer friends with whom I trade unpubbed work to critique, beta-read, etc.
Hmmm….your endorsement may have tipped the scales. :-)
Grace_is_sufficient on October 10, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Politics + Atheism (a subset of religion) = good things, right? Not so much.
You’re merely showing just how prolific the erroneous belief that religion and man’s relationship to man can somehow be separated is.
“Politics” is derived from the Greek word meaning “affairs of the state”. Religion seeks to answer four questions for an individual: 1) from where did we come? 2) where are we going? 3) what is our purpose? 4) how then should we live? Laws, which are determined by political entities, regardless of the governmental form, dictate to a people what they ought or ought not do. The determining standard for that which we ought and ought not do is derived from the religion of those writing the laws. Culture is nothing more than religion externalized.
Sure, we can agree that Islam is probably not the model by which we should base political decisions, but to say that religion should have no role in politics is like suggesting we should make concrete without cement.
Send_Me on October 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM
(Assuming a conservative power resurgence in Washington) As we begin to get our house in order, it is my hope and prayer we don’t forget, or ignore, those oppressed peoples in other countries.
We, as a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the chief of which is the value of the individual because he/she is created in the image of God, have the duty, honor, and mandate to protect those outside our borders.
Who, given the discovered atrocities of Hitler, would have gainsayed our invovlement in WW II. How much different North Korea? The people there have resorted to cannabilism because a tryant of the worst stripe will not recognize the dignity of the people. And NK is just one example.
For all their vitriol the liberal mindset ignores the suffering of people in Islamic nations–and the list of those nations is long.
We need to, indeed, we must, serve notice that we will not stand by while evil men toture, maim, and kill. No matter where or who.
Do we have leaders who will not just give lip service to freedom but will, in concrete ways, “let freedom ring” for all people?
We, as a nation abundantly blessed by God, have riches untold to share with others; the eternal truths upon which America was founded: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
davidk on October 10, 2010 at 6:25 PM
I’m reading Descartes Bones at the moment which outlines similar conflicts between spirituality and science. Good book… pretty light and easy to read.
lexhamfox on October 10, 2010 at 7:06 PM
Being a Christian should be a qualification for political office, as it was in Mass. at the beginning of the 13 colonies. If one is truly a christian, he will have the moral base and character to always act in the way that pleases God and treats man in the proper way.
flytier on October 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Characterize it however you wish, but John Baptiste called Herod out for boinking his sister-in-law, and Jesus called Herod a fox (we would say “weasel”).
So much for “tone.”
Basically, if Christians aren’t being violently persecuted it’s either because they won or they’re not paying attention.
Akzed on October 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM
http://www.persecution.com/
davidk on October 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM
The argument of the authors seems to imply that a nation when acting in international affairs has the same moral constraints and imperatives that an individual has. This assumption leads down many foolish paths and also is unwarranted.
snaggletoothie on October 10, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Uh, you can do that with anything. Lets see,
Politics + money = Bad juju. Look at Chicago.
Politics + good intentions = Bad juju. Look at the Democrat party.
Politics + a dark suit or a red dress = bad government. Look at congress.
It’s ok to believe some religions are better than others. Just because some barbarians mandate demon worship in their government and sacrifice virgins to volcanoes is not an indictment of Christianity in government.
Ours was founded as a Christian nation. Courts throughout our history have acknowledge this. This separation of God and government thing is something from the last 50 years. Not the last 200.
But, having a “Christian government,” only means it is based on morality that protects the right of people to reject religion, while acknowledging the Bible as the highest authority, it will not force the Bible on anyone. But neither will it force the Bible to be taken from anyone.
Why is this so hard to understand? Our constitution and Declaration are so easy to understand, yet we’ve become so perplexed by it. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” This is so simple in its understanding. Congress can’t interfere with our worship, while our other Documents acknowledge the God of the Bible and that we are all created equally. Congress is told to keep it’s hands off, not to interfere with the people or establishments. Whenever a court steps in and says some kid can’t pray or some kid can’t say grace, or a teacher can’t talk about the Bible in class they are wrong. They should be impeached and removed from office. The first time the court did this those judges should’ve been impeached. But the people did nothing and they continue to get away with it to the point now a whole generation has grown up not understanding our freedoms.
The constitution says “congress.” It doesn’t say anything about a mayor, and teacher, a governor, a court house, a school child, an employee. The word is “congress.” Followed by “shall not make a law nor prohibit the free exercise thereof…”
Corrupt judges and politicians will continue to do whatever they think they can get away with.
JellyToast on October 10, 2010 at 8:34 PM
As for our courts acknowledging we are a Christian nation, the book “The Christian Manifesto” from Frances Scott Shaffer is filled with cases and rulings where American courts have stated that we are indeed a Christian nation. It is an excellent book. Read it some time ago and still have it around here somewhere.
JellyToast on October 10, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Do you mean Francis August Schaeffer? I’ve got everything he’s written. Also, if you’ve not read Nancy Pearcey (studied under Schaeffer at L’abri) you should.
Bee on October 10, 2010 at 8:50 PM
[From http://jellytoast.wordpress.com/
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/10/on-my-desk-city-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-3971326
davidk on October 10, 2010 at 9:02 PM
I believe there was a group of men who spoke a lot about such matters and for modern times. I believe they were called The Founding Fathers.
Luka on October 10, 2010 at 9:03 PM
If one wants to argue that we are a “Christian Nation”, one might as well argue in the same vain that we are a “White Nation”. I don’t think that would be a very productive path.
Luka on October 10, 2010 at 9:07 PM
This is quite a rewrite of history.
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. (Thomas Jefferson)
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy. (James Madison)
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. (John Adams)
Luka on October 10, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Funny, considering how the more we deviate from either, the worse off we’re becoming. Our current president has in 2 years outdone both the Bush Bunch and the Cintoon Clan for destruction of freedom and throwing tax dollars down ratholes.
Dark-Star on October 10, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Luca: that is most disingenuous of you to misquote or even take out of context the words of these men. You Malign them sir, in trying to mean they were irreligious or considered religion dangerous. It is only dangerous when you try to link Government and clergy, but they were in no doubt that God lives, and that worship of him and being a moral people important, even critical to the success of this nation.
Take for instance these quotes:
George Washington: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
John Adams (I find it particularily reprehensible how you malign his thoughts, but typical of an irreligious person that has no idea that the Christian ideas that lead to the founding of this nation were important. Indeed, sir, if you take God out of the picture, how long does it take for Man to start to try to take away rights of the people? The irreligious as yourself are part of the problem with the downward spiral of this nation. your Religion of no religion is the worst of all to be mixed with Government. See; Communism and how well the religion of Atheism is for protecting man)
Anyway, back to DIRECT quotes of John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
Or how about this, as terrifying as it is to you to face the truth of his religiosity: “I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen”
OR ” The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
Trot out your idea they wanted Atheism for a state religion here or allowed intolerance to tell people that the only expression they may make is in church but in public there is no spot for it elsewhere.
Your religious of “NO”religion and atheism has done more harm in few short years than any Christian Group.
Noelie on October 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Interesting coincidence to see this topic after spending part of my afternoon reading Toqueville, specifically his discussion of religion as a main cause in maintaining democracy.
He warns of intertwining religion and politics. Political powers are transient and temporary while religion is eternal. Attach a religion too closely to political causes and the religion will experience the same decay that the politics will eventually experience, and unbelievers will reject religion not on the basis of faith, but because of its political allies.
Still curious to read City of Man, which looks to be a much easier read than City of God…
caveman on October 10, 2010 at 10:21 PM
That may be. It’s been awhile since I read that book. I’ll have to check it now.
Nice try. You can argue how much God, but don’t even try to throw around a few quotes and act like our Founders wanted No God or No Christianity.
You want quotes, I’ll give you quotes.
And I will end with this, one of my most favorite quotes:
Samuel Adams
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
JellyToast on October 10, 2010 at 10:47 PM
You are certainly correct, Ed, that the New Testament speaks little of government, as it speaks little of marriage and other common place institutions. Many Christians constantly fail to take into account the simple fact that those who composed the New Testament expected the emanate return of Christ and certainly did not envision a 2000 year interval of social and political development. This, of course, is the cause of much difficulty as regards Christianity.
John Adams on October 10, 2010 at 10:59 PM
I don’t either. Because I wouldn’t try to make that argument because “white” is ambiguous as to what it means. However, being “Christian” means certain things and not others.
But if I were to use “white nation” as “majority white”, it doesn’t mean that non-whites are not welcome. In that sense, saying it’s a “Christian nation” doesn’t mean that non-Christians aren’t welcome.
To me it seems to be confusing whether there is a “white way” to treat non-whites, but there seems to be definitely a Christian way to treat non-Christians.
Axeman on October 10, 2010 at 11:25 PM
I don’t think they wanted the state to play role at all so we can believe what we want. Many of the people of the early US came here because they were fleeing religious states of one kind or another.
lexhamfox on October 11, 2010 at 12:12 AM
This is why we ought to be very concerned about President Obama’s intentional omission of the Creator out of his quote of the Declaration of Independence. This creates a vacuum for the State to fill and some bureaucrat becomes the sole arbiter of whose life is worth of life.
If you are in a reading mood, let me recommend J.G. Machen’s, Christianity and Liberalism. He argues that Liberalism is a religion that redefines the central doctrines of Christianity and that the two are not compatible with each other. We are witnessing a battle for the faith before our eyes as “Liberal Christians” are seeking to mandate their dogmatic view, their false view, of the faith the new paradigm. If the Liberal view becomes triumphant, the State will replace the Church and that does not bode well for any of us.
Blue Collar Todd on October 11, 2010 at 1:20 AM
Some more thoughts on politics and Jesus.
The Revolutionary Politics Of Jesus; Love One Another:
The last two years we have seen a remarkable focus on what it means to be a Christian and how that looks particularly for those in public life. Obviously, the election of Barrack Obama as President and his claims to be a Christian are helping keep this focus alive and the debates ongoing. Debate rages between Republicans and Democrats over issues like abortion and gay rights as each side appeals to the teachings of Jesus to justify their positions. We Christians are increasingly seen for what we are against instead of what we are for. Let me try and locate issues like abortion and gay rights in a larger context, a context that grounds how the Christian ought to stand on not only abortion and gay rights, but also most issues facing our generation. This will be done by looking at the teachings of Jesus in one key area, our love for one another, our brothers and sisters who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Jesus calls on us to love on another as a testimony to the world.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35
Obviously we are to show love to others a well, as Jesus taught with the example of the good Samaritan, but a clear primacy is to be given for the faithful. The main teaching of Jesus that I would like to focus on and the one that truly has a revolutionary quality to it comes from Matthew 25.
31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:31-46
In this passage our love for one another will be judged by how we treated one another. The way we treat “the least of these”, the brothers and sisters of Jesus, our fellow Christians, has major implications when we face judgment before Jesus. Pastor Kevin DeYoung has put it like this:
This is in stark contrast to the universalist interpretation by “Liberal Christians” of which Jim Wallis may be one of the best well known since he is an ardent supporter of President Obama. Liberals view “the least of these” as anyone in the condition Jesus describes, particularly the poor. Of course, Christians are called to help the poor, but this view will actually bring about the judgment for which Jesus is warning us about.
The proper understanding of this passage has critical implications for our politics and the grounding of issues like abortion and gay rights. For if we are to truly love our brothers and sisters in Jesus and help those of them that are “the least of these” then we cannot support Democrats and the Liberal agenda they seek to implement. For by doing so, we help bring about contempt for Christians in this country as a Liberal agenda seeks to normalize and legitimize the sin for which Jesus died on the cross for, sin that needs to be repented of not embraced. When we locate the issue of abortion and gay rights in this context we see that no Christian can be pro-choice or support those who are. Nor can any Christian support those who are advancing the normalization of homosexuality through gay rights. If “Christians” do support those who advocate abortion and gay rights, not only are they helping to propagate sin, but more profoundly they are violating the call to care for their brothers and sisters in Jesus. These “Liberal Christians” will help bring about the persecution the faithful by ensuring their status as bigots in society. Why would any Christian want to support someone or advance an agenda that will ensure the persecution of their brethren?
Jesus even made His identity with His followers explicitly clear when He confronted Saul on the road to Damascus.
“Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” Acts 9:1-6
Saul was persecuting Christians, violating the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25, and Jesus confronted Saul with the fact that he was persecuting Jesus. Issues like abortion and gay rights go to the heart of the Christian faith. If we are truly created in the image of God, then we have intrinsic value from the moment of conception. Recently President Obama has dropped the idea of a Creator as the grounds for our inalienable rights and that ought to concern us very much. Obama is so radically pro-abortion that during the campaign he was willing to attack a survivor of abortion, Gianna Jensen. By advocating a radical pro-abortion public policy, Liberals are helping to create a bias against anyone who would defend the unborn as having inherent value, thus violating Matthew 25.
Gay rights is an equally if not more powerful example of this. For what will the consequence be for Christians once the normalization of homosexuality is complete in society and it’s acceptance is demanded by the State? What will be the consequence when people no longer think it possible to change their lifestyle through repentance? Christian are called to preach the Gospel, repentance from sin and salvation through Jesus alone, which means they would be in conflict with Liberal dogma on this. Of course Christians are to expect persecution, but based on Matthew 25, it should not be brought about by other Christians.
Liberalism poses a threat to Christians in America and I think if we take the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25 to heart it should be clear that Christians cannot support Democrats. Our call to love another and take care of our brethren in need, “the least of these”, means we cannot support those who advocate policies that will ensure the persecution of our faithful kin.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/10/revolutionary-politics-of-jesus-love.html
Blue Collar Todd on October 11, 2010 at 3:29 AM
You have to remember here, just because we have a New Testament does not mean God changed. Jesus quoted often from the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy the law.
Sometimes we get this view of Jesus being this little pious timid guy who spoke softly and went around just healing people and being “really nice.” I have yet to see a Jesus portrayed in a movie that anyone would want to really follow. (with exceptions to The Passion, but that focused on His suffering on the cross)
It’s somewhat amusing we are having this discussion about how much Christians should be involved in government. Some guy writes a book stating there’s really little evidence of or instruction in the New Testament about government. And yet whole nations have risen because of it. Constitutions have been based on it. Governments have been formed and wars have been fought because of what Jesus did. Colleges, Universities, hospitals, art, music have all been inspired and begun because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And yet we think there’s little instruction about government in the New Testament. Maybe some people just don’t want to see.
JellyToast on October 11, 2010 at 6:52 AM
Ed, see if you can get this book on Kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/World-Fire-1919-Battle-Bolshevism/dp/0393061248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286803724&sr=1-1
The World on Fire: 1919 and the Battle with Bolshevism, by Anthony Read. I’m halfway through it, and it is fascinating.
Vashta.Nerada on October 11, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Culture is more powerful than politics because it is more foundational. I think the best way to advance the agenda is to engage culturally more.
Look at the opposition. Their only method of argument is to frame the debate in pop culture through movies and TV. If they had a shred of truth, they would not need these towers of defense.
The problem is whenever Christians make something like music or movies, they try to set it off as a sub-genre (ie, “Christian rock”) because the product in question is crap.
There needs to be a more universal approach that has wider appeal and comes off as less preachy and didactic.
The Kindle is great. I have it read Hot Air to me every morning when I shave. Beats listening to the morning. I miss the old mispronounced “Obama”. It must have been corrected in an auto-update.
Also, I noticed the tiny smiley in bottom left of your webpage. Weird.
StubbleSpark on October 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM
I agree with your premise, but not the conclusion. Why surrender powerful didactic mediums, that is, music and cinema? Are you implying that Christians are incapable of making creative, entertaining, and doctrinally-sound media, and therefore implying that Christians should not even try? Rather, Christians need to focus their efforts on creating things of excellence vice merely calling something good for being “Christian”. Christians need to also become active listeners and viewers of all media to discern whether or not the direct and aesthetic messages are Christian or not.
Send_Me on October 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM
I was trying to decide between an iPad, or a subnotebook+Kindle WiFi. My wife has a Sony Reader, which I *really* like, so I’m already used to the e-readers.
In talking with the next door neighbor about my conundrum, he loaned me his iPad for a week to “try it out”.
I really wanted to like the iPad (I’m an iPhone user of 2 plus years), and the battery life is superb (hours and hours and hours) …but it took me all of three days to give it back to him.
First: it’s no substitute for even the surfing and light emails that I use the laptop for of an evening. (This is my “bed” laptop, so it’s gotta be small-ish, and w/long-battery life).
The iPad is just not as versatile as a netbook, even (it doesn’t multi-task, not really). It’s too slow, too often when it renders. And it don’t have tab browsing, either.
But the real deal-killer was …the weight. It don’t sound “heavy” from the specs. But even at only a pound-and-a-half, holding it to surf the web was distinctly uncomfortable after a relatively short period of time.
(The Sony reader is a few less ounces, but you never think “This is heavy” while reading it; it’s as light as a typical paperback.)
…and I really do prefer reading the eInk (or whatever they call it): it’s MUCH easier on the eyes for hours of reading.
davisbr on October 11, 2010 at 11:06 PM