The 4 Sins of Patriotism & Nationalism

If you keep up with me on here, on facebook, or in real life, you might have noticed that I don't exactly scream red, white, and blue. I'm a rather unpatriotic, non-nationalistic person, and to some that is offensive, especially to some Christians. Christianity in the United States has been deeply connected to American pride and ideals for quite some time, and so I understand the alarming nature of seeing a Christian "not be patriotic" nor "proud to be an American." At one point in my life, this kind of thing alarmed me too, and I could not understand why some didn't rep the bald eagle and appreciate The American Dream like I did. So, I sympathize a good deal and furthermore would like to offer an explanation for why I believe what I believe in hopes to open up a dialogue on the topic. 

Brief background first. Church and state were far from being connected up until the 4th century when Constantine legalized Christianity. Before this, Christians were fed to lions and martyred, because it was illegal. Some of the most genuine faith heroes we know about, and even ones we never will, came out of this time period because they chose to follow Christ in the face of such adversity. Once Constantine came along, all of this changed, as well as the church at large. There are people who say that we cannot begin to understand what the first century church was like because of a prescription lens that we, the church, got from Constantine. 

Go through 1700 years of history and you can see the impact this shift has made. The pope was as powerful as many emperors and battled for supremacy because church and state were hardly separable. In the name of Christ, crusaders sought to reclaim the holy land, acting on behalf of the state and slaughtering thousands of people in the name of the church. Come down a few years later and you have American colonists with political freedom in their hearts and religious freedom on their lips throwing off their british oppressors (much like the Zealots wished to do with Rome, but with no backing from Jesus to do so). Such patterns of political oppression (far less than any Christians bore peacefully during the first three centuries of the church) have been equated with God given rights and have put a spark in patriots' hearts for years. 

Now a days, it's common to see "Proud to be an American" t-shirts in church as much as anywhere else in the world. It's not even uncommon for flags to be found in churches as well as for preachers and teachers alike to speak on the price paid for religious freedom. Based on our history as a church, it really is not surprising. Everything makes sense in context, and it is clear to see why the church is so patriotic. 

But should this be the case? Church, I hold that patriotism and nationalism are behaviors that have no business in our churches. And if you'll bear with me, I'll explain. 

1. The Church Is The New Israel

Once upon a time, church and state were essentially the same thing and this was approved by God. The Israelites were God's chosen people. They were His nation. What's interesting is that even Israel was commanded to take in outsiders.

These days, the book of Ephesians lets me know that the Church is the new Israel, and so God's chosen people are no longer associated with a nation. And this chosen people is now inclusive of both Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, American and Iraqi. For Christians then, this would seem to thwart such a strong identity being found in anything but the Body of Christ. 

2. It Labels "Us" And "Them"

Having a strong sense of nationalism unavoidably begins to label people outside the cultural norm as "others" for reasons of skin color, language, and a slew of other markers. When we were attacked on 9/11, I remember someone close to me saying that "we should just nuke the entire Middle East." Hopefully that statement is as shocking and disgusting to you as it would be to Jesus. Unfortunately, I know of several Christians that if pressured might say something very similar. 

Somehow the whole "love your enemies" gig that Jesus commands goes out the window when it comes to national identity. We can't even love Christians on the other side of the border. Soldiers in both the north and south during the Civil War prayed to the same God for success and protection before filling their fellow brothers in Christ with lead. Church goers in Germany followed their "Christian Nation" into battle during WWII and thought very little of it. 

There should not be a prayer offered up in a Christian church for "our troops" because the church does not have troops. As Mark Twain eloquently put it in his lesser known writing War Prayer, one cannot pray for victory on their side without praying for failure and death on the other.

We have more in common with Christians of enemy nations than we do with the soldiers of our own nation who cause those Christians to suffer. Jesus destroyed all concepts of "them" and we should not be so quick to start drawing lines in the sand. 

3. It Divides Our Allegiance

The city of Philippi was a major part of battles waged by the Roman empire during the time leading up to Christ's birth. Because of this, the victors of the battle gave the entire city a huge honor - Roman citizenship. In that day, being a Roman citizen was much like being an American today. It was the most advanced and powerful society in the world. When Paul wrote to the church there, he called them Citizens of Heaven, differentiating this citizenship from the earthly one that they held. 

The language surrounding Jesus was not new language. Lord and Savior were common titles used for Caesar, for he was essentially their deity. When writers of the New Testament call Jesus Lord and Savior...there is a faint echo of "and Caesar is not" that follows close behind. 

This is why Christians were fed to lions. Their allegiance was dedicated solely to Christ and there was nothing left for Caesar. 

The idea that one could have allegiance to any person or institution other than Christ would have been a ridiculous idea to first century Christians, they would have called it idolatry. In today's world we say the pledge of allegiance in Christian assemblies and think nothing of it. 

4. It Loves "The World"

When Jesus replies to Pilate's question of "Are You A King?", He replies with the line "My kingdom is not of this world." I touched on this in my last post pretty heavily, but this line is not a reference to some metaphysical experience. Not Of This World specifically refers to the idea that The Kingdom of God does not operate like the kingdoms of this world. He differentiates His kingdom from the institutions and systems of this world. 

Nationalism and Patriotism do the exact opposite. They applaud and take pride in the institutions of this world that Jesus so clearly wanted to differentiate Himself from. 

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are the shining lights of Christianity they are so often held up to be. There is no "God party" when measured up to the teachings of Jesus. Nor will there ever be. The way of Jesus simply isn't compatible with The World. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

I speak almost exclusively of American Christianity because it is what I live in and know, but the principles apply to any and all nations where Christ's church resides. 

There should be no church with any nation's flag sharing space with emblems of worship. There should never be patriotic hymns sung in church. No communion thought should ever compare the sacrifice of Jesus with acts done in war. 

I understand that some of this doesn't even make sense because the acceptance of Patriotism and Nationalism is foundationally and systemically rooted in American Christianity. It's like having a cataract that renders you to see the world through a blue tint, and never realizing that the world is not blue. It has been engrained within so many of us. 

However, I ask you to question your lens, read scripture, and challenge your value positions accordingly. If you want to discuss any of this, I am more than willing to do that. But I can't sit by and leave the church to wallow in the sins of Babylon without even realizing it. I challenge the church to "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins" (Revelation 18:4)

Works Cited:

Most of this comes from a working knowledge of things I've read and have adapted with my personal stance on issues, namely

Camp, Lee C. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003. Print. 

Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2013. Print. 

The Messiah & His Kingdom

I wrote about a similar thread of thought a few posts ago discussing Captain America. There are a lot of allusions to Christ in our culture. Most super heroes (especially characters like Superman) are essentially messiah figures. Soldiers sometimes sacrifice their lives for a greater cause. We admire figures who fight for freedom of one sort or another.

Should this be the case though? Is fighting for freedom a Christlike example? Let’s look at that idea for a bit.

Now, it is not shocking to me that we have done this in our society and even our churches. After all, the word Χρίστος (Christos, usually transliterated as “Christ” but more so translates to “Messiah”) is the word that has the meaning of Savior, and that word can be applied to many figures depending on perspective and context. First century people did the exact same thing. The Prince of Peace was born into a world that was absolutely drenched in violence caused by messiah figures.

In the Old Testament, God is the people’s Savior and Deliverer. Sometimes He uses figures to help in this, but it is always by His hand that victory comes. Some of these secondary figures go awry from time to time though. Gideon ends up seeking personal vengeance, worshipping idols, and using unethical means of warfare despite such humble and God filled beginnings. Although we usually paint him as a hero in VBS, Samson was no more than a brute who engaged in all kinds of inappropriate behavior and even at the end of his life, seeks personal glory instead of glory for God (Judges 16:28).

In between the Old and New Testaments, one of the most significant things to happen in Jewish history was what a man named Judas Maccabee (literally “the hammer”) accomplished.  Under him, the single most successful Jewish revolt (at least since the days when God was delivering the Israelites by His own hand) was achieved. Under the Maccabees, the Jews were able to throw off their Greek oppressors. The Maccabees eventually start turning on their own people, but nevertheless, their success “would shape the way Jewish people in Jesus’s day would understand – and anticipate – the kingdom of God” (Sprinkle, 115).

Many messiah figures heralded themselves even in Jesus’s lifetime and afterwards. I could go into the details of these men’s exploits, but they can be summed as essentially being about throwing off Roman (no longer Greek) oppression in order to bring back God’s kingdom, sometimes claiming to be prophets, but always showing themselves as saviors to the people. They pretty much all failed though.

This was the first century understanding of what it meant to be a messiah ushering in God’s kingdom. Enter a Jewish carpenter from a small town who taught people to “turn the other cheek” and “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Who could possibly take this “Messiah” seriously?

There are many times when Jesus would inform people NOT to tell other people that He was the Messiah. Why would He do this? Because the term itself, as well as what bringing God’s kingdom to earth meant, had been incredibly tinted by the blood drawn by Maccabean swords.

Jesus would redefine what Kingdom and Messiah meant. When asked by Pilate if Jesus was a king, Jesus replied that “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).

Now, Jesus isn’t referring to some metaphysical, spiritual thing when He said “not of this world”, instead he is saying that in His kingdom, the citizens do not act in the same way that the world does. The same use of “the world” is found elsewhere, such as “do not love the world,” not meaning the actual world but the socially constructed systems of the world (Sprinkle, 2013).

In Jesus’s definition of God’s kingdom, there is no fighting for it the way that the world does or the Maccabees did.

This is why it bothers me when we “fight” for religious freedom, or for anything really, through either violence or political means. Jesus had absolutely no intention of overthrowing Rome (a government far more oppressive than ours has ever been). Instead He challenged it ideologically through concepts such as social stratification, treatment of the outcast, economics, and the idea that enemies are to be loved.

Fact is, while we are busy bleeding while fighting our enemies in order to obtain or maintain religious freedom, Christ is bleeding in order to make our enemies whole.

There is nothing more noble than sacrificing one’s life for others, because that is what Christ did. However, Jesus wanted to differentiate himself from the other “messiahs” who used violence in order to free people. Jesus absorbed violence into Himself in order to save people; He never reciprocated or perpetuated it.

I realize that some of this is provocative. As always, feel free to hit me up and we can dialogue about all this. However, let this marinate and permeate your brain so that God's truth, not mine, America's, or even your local church's truth, can be how we think. May we always seek to sharpen one another. 

Work Cited:

Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2013. Print.

Baptism: All About That Watery Grave

Many of you know I was born and raised in Churches of Christ, some may not. If you know Churches of Christ at all, you likely know two things: you generally don't see instruments and there's a heavy emphasis on baptism. The importance of the first is slowly dwindling as years go by. The second one has stayed more consistent though, and has stirred a good number of conversations in my life. So, that's what I want to talk about for a bit. I will say that I've come a long way in my views of baptism and so maybe this will be a helpful read for you, despite the denomination you come from. 

I'll go ahead and whip out the old phrase that people generally use against Churches of Christ - "They think you have to be baptized to be saved!" 

Let's pick that apart a bit. The first way people sometimes take that is that baptism saves you. Some in Churches of Christ may think that...but it's not true...and most of us don't actually think that. Everybody knows that Jesus saves people. I was immersed in water PLENTY of times at church camp, mainly by much larger kids in the pool area. Baptism apart from Jesus is absolutely pointless. 

So, let's play with that statement a little bit. We do not think baptism is how a person is saved as much as when a person is saved. That is a much more accurate representation of most people in Churches of Christ. Honestly, this makes a lot of sense to me, and I'll tell you why. The language and metaphor surrounding baptism just point to it. It is at this point in time that we are said to reenact Christ's death and resurrection, dying to our sins and being raised up in newness of life (Romans 6:3-7). Many biblical authors also point to baptism as the point that one comes into contact with the blood of Christ which washes us clean of iniquity. Go and search baptism for yourself and look at the metaphor and language surrounding it. Alot of the time, it's these images and transportation language, going from one thing to another like in Galatians 3:27 when it discusses being clothed with Christ. 

Now, many jump on that and say "hey, baptism is a work and we can't be saved by works." On one level they are right, and on another I feel there is some misunderstanding. I'll reiterate - NOTHING saves you but Jesus. However, we have a part somewhere in this whole thing. There is a level of obedience in everybody's theology. The Sinner's Prayer is something we do. Repentance is something we do. Believing is something we do. Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is something we do. Baptism is in fact one of the most passive acts of obedience. You are baptized (passive), raised up in newness of life (passive) and cleansed by Jesus's blood (passive). Obedience on any level is a response to what Jesus did for us on the cross. The Sermon on the Mount makes it pretty apparent that Jesus demands some obedience of us, so I'm not sure why people get hung up on "works." After all, NOTHING saves you but Jesus, but what if He cleanses you and raises you up from that watery grave where your sins are put to death?

Now, some of you are still thinking "I'm not saying I don't believe in baptism, my church does that, I just was never taught that it was the point of salvation. If I get baptized at a later date during a group baptism or whatever would that still count?" 

As far my personal stance, I've already stated why I see baptism as so important. It's the language surrounding it. Also, read Acts. There is an immediate response from people to be baptized. It is often said that people received the gift of the Holy Spirit in accompaniment to it (and then gifts being associated with the laying on of hands by the apostles). Now, there are exceptions to this, but it's the general pattern laid out. 

However, this is where I'd like to address some of my own brethren. Shall we limit or comprehend God's grace? I do not believe we can comprehend it, nor should we ever try to limit it. 

Alexander Campbell once stated that he would call any person trying to follow Christ a Christian, something I very much agree with. After writing this, he received a letter from a lady asking if he believe that baptism was necessary for salvation. He replied that he did. At this point, she asked him how he could call those who did not practice baptism in exactly the scriptural way a true Christian. His reply was that while he would always teach what he saw as the most scripturally evident means of baptism, how could he possibly limit God's grace by saying it could only be done in one particular way? After all, do you honestly think you get every little piece of the Bible right? We strive for the most scriptural, Christlike way, but nevertheless we are human and we will fall short. So, he stated that the only people he truly worried for were those who despised baptism as a practice. 

In my life, I agree with that. I very much see the necessity and pattern set forth for the practice of baptism and will always teach that. However, if you are truly following Jesus with all your life and you have not completely neglected baptism as a practice, I will call you brother or sister. 

In all reality, this is inclusive to most folks. Prettttttty much everybody practices baptism is one way or another. Not many (hopefully) truly are just like "heck with that piece of crap work, we're just gonna believe and think happy thoughts."  

Now, there will always be the people that just try to throw a wrench in things. Example, what about the criminal on the cross? Well, Jesus is pretty cool and He pretty much has the authority to do that. Remember though, we are asked to participate in His death and resurrection by the apostles. What about the gentiles who received the Holy Spirit without baptism (Acts 10)? Well, there was some pretty crazy stuff happening around that time. People were getting struck dead (Ananias and Sapphira) and all kinds of stuff that would make the church today audibly say "whoa." It's the more general pattern set for the church that should be examined, not rare happenstances. What if a person is going to get baptized and they are in a car accident on their way to church? C'MON!!!! Now you're just being adverse. You will rarely run into a person who believes that God's grace isn't big enough to cover things when something absolutely terrible happens. That doesn't mean the concept is something to be ignored. 

Overall, go read up on it. Read Acts (there's a lot of good stuff in there) and see what the general pattern is. Note the language surrounding the event. Do some study. Be inquisitive. 

However, I'll end this post by telling you to always remember: There is NOTHING that can save you but Jesus Christ. 

God's Plan?

Recently I've heard people talking about tragedy and how it relates to "God's plan." It goes something like this, "I know [tragedy] happened but I also know that it's part of God's plan."

If I may be so bold, I'd like to address this by saying - No it's not. 

Many of you know my life story, many of you don't. My father died just before I was two years old and my mom was pregnant with my younger sister. Talk about getting your world rocked. Subsequently, I've dealt with a number of other losses of people I know and love. All throughout my life I've seen people leave this earth in less than pleasant ways, sometimes way sooner than is normal. People try to comfort those who have lost by saying stuff like "It's part of God's plan," "God must have needed another angel," and the like. 

Quite frankly, that's bullcrap. 

My personal understanding of God's providence does not include God taking my father in a car crash while my mother, unborn sister, and myself were left without a person to fill such a vital role. It is not God's plan for people to get cancer, suffer terribly, and die early. It's simply not. Now, I don't just think this because the idea of God causing these things is troublesome to me, I think this because the Bible informs me so. 

Let's start at the beginning. In Eden, we see God's real plan for humanity. Perfection. Shalom - nothing is missing, nothing is broken. That is God's plan. Unfortunately, we messed that up and we now live in a fallen world due to sin. Now, God can make anything beautiful out of what is ugly. So, when we did sin and fall, He made a way for us to come back into relationship with Him. However, it was not His intention for us to disobey Him. 

Later on, when the Israelites rebel against God, He punishes them by means of other nations and invasions. The interesting thing is, God always ends up punishing these other nations for the violence they do against Israel as well. So it's saying that God makes Assyria and other nations attack Israel only to punish them for obeying Him? I don't think so. I think that these nations were hungry for expansion, God gives people the will to choose what they do, and so God used an already bloodthirsty nation to fulfill His need to punish Israel. However, it was still that nation's decision. God can make anything work for His glory. 

Think of the countless saints who unfortunately died early in life, but think about the impact that their lives made on this world. Martyrs have inspired others to stronger faith for centuries, and sometimes even when a death is not because of persecution, that person's life makes a huge impact on this world. I saw this most recently with a young man who was in a youth group I worked with. He died due to heart complications one night while running. However, you should have seen the response of others to this. His life was one of such witness and love that he will be inspiring men and women for years to come, despite it being so short due to living in a fallen world where heart conditions and sickness exist.

In my own story, a man came along and became my father when I needed one, and has loved me unconditionally from the day he took on that challenge. 

So is tragedy a part of God's plan? I don't think so. That's the result of living in an imperfect world where Satan still operates today. Did God need another angel? Nope. God doesn't need anyone, although He desires us strongly. Furthermore, we don't become angels. Nowhere in scripture can that idea be found. That is nothing more than commercialized Christianity.

I realize I'm kind of dogging on all those "feel good" things out there and sound a bit like a downer. But stop and think. Would you really rather hold the opinion that God gave someone cancer, or a heart condition, or took my father away in a car accident? 

In all reality, I present this viewpoint in order to give a better understanding of tragedy and pain. Many have left faith because they have blamed God for allowing or even causing such things. I've already stated why I don't think He causes it. In terms of allowing, I present this final thought that I've used before in blogs, but it is so fitting. 

"...Jesus isn't magic. Jesus is human. Jesus is the very incarnation of God; He's God with us - to bring us not magic but accompaniment, not "healing"...but salvation...any healing that is more than a temporary solution - that is, in other words, transformation...demands deep accompaniment. It demands that another enter into my world and bear my suffering, not to magically take it away but to die with me if needed...The cross reveals this Jesus: not a magical one but a suffering one, not a God who takes away pain but a God who joins us in it."

Are there more questions? Yes there are. Do I have all the answers? Not at all.

At the end of the day though, this gives me rest. I know that despite what happens in this life, "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His faithful servants" (Psalm 116:15) because they no longer have to suffer in this fallen world. God holds them in His hand in a place so much better.   

Reference:

Root, Andrew, and Kenda C. Dean. The Theological Turn in Youth Ministry. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011. Print. 

An Honest Political Opinion

Let the controversy continue. I see the church being divided when it comes to political opinion in a pretty hard way. It divides the nation, but we let it divide the church as well. With something so dividing, I feel like the discussion should be had in a very honest and open way. So, let's get into it. 

I guess I'll start with the Religious Right. This has been the party most associated with Christianity for quite some time. However, the only real stand-out point between just the Republican party and the Religious Right is that these are the people who would have us be a distinctly Christian nation guided by Christian morals. Now, that sounds pretty good at first glance, but it gets a bit muddled up in my opinion. Take the emphasis put on not allowing same-sex marriage as an example. Since marriage according to the Bible is one man and one woman, this party does not support it. I'll say that I don't at surface level agree with same-sex marriage, but let me explain. Christian marriage would not allow for it, but do Christians have a monopoly on marriage? Hinduism practices marriage, so it’s not a distinctly Christian practice. Should we outlaw any non-Christian marriage? Should Vegas weddings be made illegal since they are often far from the Biblical example of marriage? It would seem hard to push all of our Christian ideals off on the nation at large. I've said it multiple times before, I say it now, we are NOT a Christian nation that is set apart by God. Israel was the only one, and the church is now. So, the church is set apart, but our nation is not. God gives us freewill to be a part of His bride; people should not be legally bound to live in the church. I'm sure I'll end up saying more about this, but for now let's just leave it at that. 

OK. The Republican Party. Marked by small government, capitalism, working hard, and elephants. Like I said before, the Religious Right isn't really far off from here. So how does it measure up in terms of Christianity? I should say to begin that I think this party works pretty well when it comes to creating a prosperous nation. However, prosperity isn’t a concern of Jesus, and in fact, he condemns it from time to time. 1 John 3:17 says “But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother or sister in need, yet closes their heart against them, how does God's love abide in that person?” The same might be said of those who despise all forms of financial aid to the poor because it “builds character” and “you have to earn what you get.” Granted, many make the argument that this is the church’s job, and not the government’s, and I would agree with that. However, most who say this (and in all reality, me when it comes down to it) really are not anywhere near where Jesus would have us be in terms of benevolence and compassion. Most of the time, we don’t give a crap about the poor, and if I said that from a pulpit, many might care more that I said crap than they do about the poor. Jesus loved the poor though, and asks us to do the same. What if “loving your neighbor as yourself” actually meant not spending more than half your income on yourself while spending the other half on your poor neighbor? It’s a heck of a thought. 

The church described in the NT is one marked by persecution and love. They willingly went the second mile when asked by a Roman soldier to carry a pack one mile and they were often martyred by a nation that rejected them. This seems to be a far stretch from the 2^nd Amendment loving, gun toting, give me liberty or we’ll secede mindset of the Republican Party. This is also the party that is most likely to support the death penalty and war, both of which do not exactly measure up to the “enemy love” ideal set forth by Jesus. Jesus wouldn’t have us love “Merica” and all the butt kicking that comes with it, he would have us love our enemies and turn the other cheek. The government “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), however, we are told just a few words back that as the church, we should “never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God” (Romans 12:19). So, it would appear we don’t get to be a part of that. We instead are told to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…Live in harmony with one another…Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:14-18).

Now it’s time to switch to Left wing of things. Both parties like bigger government in some areas, this side just likes it less in issues of values and morals and more in the domain of finances and other areas. Christians in this party tends to not feel as though they can push morals off on people, but include other issues of life in this. Most notably, abortion most commonly gets thrown in with this party. I’ve written more extensively on being “pro-life” and so I will just recommend looking back, but this tends to be an issue that gets at a lot of Christians, and I can’t blame them. 50,000,000 babies have been killed via this means, and I wonder if we’d give that more of a thought if they would have all been born first? While I don’t think we can push our morals off on people, I think this is an issue that Christians should work to better because a healthy respect for life is a great attribute for a country to have (and that’s all I’ll say here since I already wrote on it).

This party usually gets the wrap for being “socialistic” or “communistic” as well. Honestly, that kind of sounds like what the early church was about, at least at a lower community level. One of the things that gets me though is how these things tend to be incredibly wasteful and godless. No nation has ever tried “communism” without “atheism” being very attached to the idea, and that’s kind of unsettling to me. I don’t know why it is, it just is. “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” says Paul (1 Cor 13:3). This makes me not so sure this can be praised as “Christlike” if it does not associate with Christ. Plus, at a national level, the idea just really doesn’t seem to work out the way utopians want it to. Just an observation.


I'll say it, labeling this party as communism isn't fair. However, This party is surely connected with larger levels of governmental control in these areas. Whenever the government runs an arena, there will be insane amounts of waste because of the concepts of third-party purchasing (someone using someone else's money to buy something they will not personally use). So, there will always be waste. I think some of this is actually connected to the idea of doing something without love as I mentioned above with 1 Corinthians 13:3. It's impersonal. Also, programs that do seek to help people usually perpetuate the cycle of poverty rather than break it. While I say that, it is better than nothing. There are times when I am running somewhere and am able to do little more than give a few dollars to the person with the sign on the side of the road. However, this does nothing to break the cycle of poverty. Neither does a single meal. The answer to breaking the cycle of poverty is love, not money. When you have the type of love that frees you from monetary selfishness, there's the ticket. 

Now, I don't plan on everyone agreeing with everything I just said. I'm sure there are countless counterpoints and differing views. However, it's cool because the rest of my view actually makes up for any inaccuracies or discrepancy in opinion.

This is where we come to my real opinion about politics. What party do I associate with? NADER!

Just kidding. None of them.

How could I vote for a party that doesn’t respect life or a slew of other things the way I feel they should? Neither side is the Jesus side of things despite each claiming to be. Here’s what Jesus said about politics “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25). Pay your taxes. That’s all Jesus says about it. That’s really all that Paul says to do in Romans 13 as well, in addition to submitting to authorities (e.g. not breaking the law unless that law contradicts God’s law).

A guy named David Lipscomb taught (concerning politics) that Christians should neither vote nor participate in government, because that was earthly kingdom business and we are to be about Kingdom of Heaven work. The only thing he said we should do is obey the law to the extent that it doesn’t make us go against God, and to pay our taxes. I think it’s possible to be very actively pro-life and benevolent without being involved in government. I think when we are about Kingdom work we do what really needs doing.

The early church was not concerned about making any government more churchlike. They focused only on making the church more Christlike.

For Lipscomb, being involved in government meant having to make too many decisions that simply were not in line with Christian thought. After all, the government is an avenger, and Christians are told not to be.

So, am I saying that it’s wrong to be an active member in government or vote? Nope. I think there are good reasons not to but I don’t think I can truly justify saying that as a hard and fast rule. However, I am very willing to say that earthly kingdom work is 1,000% second to heavenly kingdom work.

For myself, I don’t vote and am certainly not in line to change things about our government. I am far too concerned with changing things about our church that seems to be so nation influenced to be concerned with any of that other garbage. I want to change the hearts of men and women, not the heart of an institution.

After all, discipleship is strongest in situations where persecution exists. The early church we admire so much existed within a governmental frame that was far more oppressive and negative towards Christianity than ours is. It was when the church became associated with the state (Constantine) that some of the strongest corruption entered the church. It seems the church is more negatively influenced by the state when associated with it than the state is positively influenced by the church.

The church does not need the government in order to be effective in this world; the opposite may be true in fact.

Quite frankly, I think the church has better things to worry about, especially on something that divides people so often and makes them so lividly angry. "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18)