Daniel v. Pelonius

The point of my ideal world is not to be trite but to illustrate the proper advocacy of Christians in the public arena.  We must not compromise in our message, though we ought to be willing to compromise in what the state chooses to implement.

 

Christians ought not to advocate for statist solutions.  They are unjust.  Both Conservative Christian pleas for morality and Liberal Christian calls for social programs invoke the state where the church has an exclusive mandate.  Instead, speak up for natural solutions which do not impede on anyone’s liberty while taking action to meet the needs of the least of these through the church as though the state were not going to do it.

 

My main contention is not with the pagans, they are going to do whatever they want to and I have no say over it.  I want to confront the church with this dualism and call it to purity of action – by renouncing political mechanisms.  Most Christians I meet never gave a second though to how the state has usurped the responsibility of the church over the last 100 years, and how it might be the fault of the church for letting this happen.  They equate nationalism with virtue, and welfare with mercy.  These are diametrically opposing concepts!  Once coercion is introduced there is no virtue or mercy.

 

There does exist a set of policies which represent “the best the state can do.”  In short: not much.  The less the better.  Stick to the judicial.  I advocate these policies on principle.  Once we know what our principles are we will have something meaningful to bring to the table of compromise.  As things stand in the church right now, however, we are compromised among ourselves by sacrificing to idols.  We have no position or standard from which to argue.  We become so malleable we are irrelevant and useful only as a jester.  To have an impact we must be a Daniel, not a Polonius.

Comments