I’m actually hoping to do exactly what the post asks for and have a “respectful back-and-forth conversation.” Asking for additional responses on certain topics doesn’t automatically make things negative does it? Maybe I’m missing something.

Give it a read here

Christian View of Government and Law – Good read all around imho:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xian-pol.html

Since civil government is necessary and divinely ordained by God (Rom. 13:1–7), it is ultimately under God’s control. It has been given three political responsibilities: the sword of justice (to punish criminals), the sword of order (to thwart rebellion), and the sword of war (to defend the state).

Rom 13:1-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2013:1-7&version=NIV

I have to say that I’m pretty far-right leaning in my politics and in my political debate experience, I’m often immediately put off by liberals (no malice meant in the term) as narrow-minded and bigoted merely for not sharing the same view point. That because I voted for McCain, that somehow I’m racist.

I know the example is extreme, but the tone from the left isn’t anymore grace-filled than the shameful tone from some of the right. So the question I struggled with is, how do we respond in civil discourse with those who refuse to be civil? I’m still searching on that one.

Josiah’s description of old testament views of government, church, and family are great and something that I’ve never thought of. And, Beth’s “snide jokes” comment really hit home.

Blessings!

I don’t think the people in Matthew 7 would have a good defense if they said, “We’re Americans; we paid taxes so we fed You when You were hungry and clothed You when You were naked.”

Paul

I studied this rather deeply in college for a project on the death penalty. I really struggled with my understanding of the death penalty for quite awhile when working on that project. Once I came to the conclusion that God had ordained government to be responsible for the delivery of justice I came to the conclusion that it was on the governments shoulders to decide what was just punishment. It is a strange thing that our government allows us any participation in that at all; consider monarchies. I see no scripture that supports or disparages any particular style of government.

This has been a topic that’s come up more frequently for me, of late, so I really should study it again and get my scriptural support back in order. I used to have it. :-)

On a rather random aside, I also question if the government should be in the business of education, but I think this gives them precedence of a sort for getting into the business of health care. We outsourced our family responsibilities to our government a long time ago. My view is that the loss of this balance has been a problem for a long time.

As to the question of whether the church can do it or not, I’d say it was shown in the case of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina that the church can and has done it better than the government. That day the government fell down and the churches stepped up. To me, it was a glimmer of hope that the church can still handle their responsibility, if only they recognized the need more urgently. So who is hiding the need? My answer is government programs. “We pay our taxes, what more should be expected of us?” I hear the same attitude in relation to missions, “We give money to the missionary, what more do you want?” Ultimately, they are the same heart problem. It’s someone else’s problem as long as I just part with some of my abundant cash.

I’m actually hoping to do exactly what the post asks for and have a “respectful back-and-forth conversation.” Asking for additional responses on certain topics doesn’t automatically make things negative does it? Maybe I’m missing something.

Well said, Bob.

I’d love to hear your definition of “hateful speech,” in that you used this term many times without really clarifying what it is and what it isn’t. We all know “hate” is a buzz word right now, used both socially and politically to paint one’s opponent into a corner. I’m interested to know your take on that issue, for clarity’s sake.

Also, part of me cringes at your words: “some things are too big for anyone but countries (government, presumably?) to do.” Jesus addressed the issue of taxation specifically, putting it squarely in the government category. But because so much of Jesus’ message involved helping the poor and downtrodden (“keeping the playing field level” would of course be an INTERPRETATION of Jesus’ message, not his actual message), it seems unbiblical for you to assert that the task of helping the poor should land on government and not the Church. After all, the Church is Christ’s body, and to say that something is too big for the Church implies that it is to big for Christ. I understand I am splitting hairs here – I’m just interested in your response.

Why can’t we just disagree, say why we disagree without the mud-slinging.

I’m not saying Jesus would agree with everything the Obama — or any other — administration does. But I think many Christians have given themselves far too much license to say what they interpret as “the truth” in a most unloving fashion.

Let’s really speak the truth in love — and don’t forget the love, ok?

P.s. I’ve hidden a couple of folks on Facebook this morning.

That’s an interesting take away that I hadn’t seen until you two mentioned it. I think it’s partially true, but partially laying an impossible burden on the church. In my view, some things are too big for anyone but countries to do. I count collection of taxes, maintenance of a military/security, and protecting the poor and downtrodden (and keeping things on a fairly level playing field) on a national scale three things under this category.

Although I’d like to think The Church could do something this big, I’m not sure it could or should. I think we should care for people one at a time and through personal relationship, not in large groups. Regardless, it’s a good observation to think about.

I disagree with it and that ultimately has to do with my conviction that the church has out-sourced their responsibilities to the government. Perhaps this is needed because the church has failed in another area. I long for the days of mission hospitals filled with loving Christian people who served the physical needs and brought a spiritual insight into the mix.

Anyway, to answer your question, “How should Christians who disagree with last night’s vote address today’s world in love?”

Where do we learn to talk politics? Conservative people, the Christians far from excluded, have learned how to talk politics at the feet of Limbaugh and company, not Christ. Limbaugh is an entertainer. His job is to keep your attention and sell ad time. He does a marvelous job at this playing on the weaknesses and humanity, appealing to the need to feel like a part of something and to be right, to be in the special group that has figure it all out. He’s talking to his listeners, not to the world. He doesn’t care about people who don’t want to listen and he profits from ripping apart those who disagree and dare call into his show. What part of that looks like Christ? Yet the conservative Christian learns to talk politics by daily taking in his thoughts and others.

I think the first thing to recognize is that the tone and words used make pretty clear that the speaker doesn’t care about those on the other side. If we truly cared our tone and words would be persuasive, not biting. They would be soft and inviting, not hard and closed. They would be respectful and considerate, not hateful and hurtful. In the end, I think we’ve learned to talk politics from those using tactics exactly opposite the appropriate response that our faith would encourage. We’ve neglected to realize that their objectives (sell ad times and entertain) are not our objectives. Then we must learn to love, but also respect and consider our audience. Are they truly served by what we have to say or are they being confronted with hatred?

If we can’t do that, we must keep our mouth shut.