All Comments for: Buy Local | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > November (Web-only)

Christianity Today, November (Web-only), 2008 |

THEOLOGY IN THE NEWS

Buy Local

What does ecclesiology have to do with the election?

Collin Hansen | posted 11/03/2008 09:39AM

The old maxim "all politics is local" hasn't held true in the 2008 election season. Despite the potential for Democratic landslide victories in the Senate and House of Representatives, you hear little ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Emmy	Posted: November 05, 2008 4:33 AM


The only thing that doesn't change is change. The bible is a standard and if we have to do things the bible way then both candidates go through. We cannot insist we are right being conservative or are right being democratic but are right obeying christ and his word. Jesus christ dined with sinners but this did not mellow His word or what He stood for!!

cajetano

Posted: November 04, 2008 6:35 PM

Evangelicals need to form their own party because neither o0f the two major parties fully represent their beliefs. In fact, the Republicans have successfully USED this group in the past. Why settle for half a loaf if you can have the whole loaf. I voted my conscience and it wasn't for either Mccain nor Obama. I don't want to be associated with either party which perpetrates innocent killings. Please don't pick out one issue - look at the whole picture.

jeri	Posted: November 04, 2008 12:52 PM

How sad that you consider that Christian voters are "inflicting" our choices on the rest of the world. One of the few and most precious rights left in this nation is the right to vote our conscience. For those of us who believe, and try to live by Biblical teachings, it means we cannot vote for a candidate who condones the slaughter of innocents both inside and, if they survive, outside the womb, vote for a gentleman regardless of how "articulate, intelligent and contemporary", whose record reveals his propensity to readily change his political positions following the publication of various poll results on various issues, who speaks easily-detected lies fluently and convincingly, continually rewrites his past, and has a long list of associates whose agenda contradicts everything many Americans hold dear. Since you are a reader of this site, I'm assuming you may be a fellow believer; therefore I remind you that while you may dislike our choices, you have no choice but to forgive us.

wesh	Posted: November 04, 2008 12:23 PM

Interesting! With a BA, some grad school and 35 years of continuing professional education and management experience, I have no idea what you are talking about. I've served on 15 corporate boards and am obviously intellectually inadaquate. Last Friday, I was in charge of stacking dirty dishes at a free dinner supported by a micro church [less that 40 adults] that happens the last 5 nights of each month [that's when people are running short of fish and bread. My 24 yo fetal alcohol foster son moved the dishes to the kitchen and scrapped them for the washer. The food line was dominated by people with mental and physical handicaps, and poor with little children. Didn't see anybody wearing a PHD.

Jim M. Roane Ph.D.

Posted: November 04, 2008 11:54 AM


Right on, Collin Hansen! Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, your observations about the Evangelical community are true. Cultic super-church-ism is a poor substitute for a Bible based ecclesiology. It is for sure that the savor has been taken out of the salt. In my opinion, it is about time for us to restructure in a more Biblical pattern.

nwberean

Posted: November 03, 2008 9:38 PM

The article cites scripture showing that Christians are to be examples to politicians, however, scripture does not say Christians are to be political. Scripture, in fact, shows that it is God's responsibility to set up the leaders of the peoples Dan 2:21 as in Nebuchadnezzar's time; but also noted elsewhere. Whether a resident of one state or another, red or blue, it makes no difference as a Christian's citizenship is founded in heaven, under Jesus' authority, not man's. Paul makes that clear in Php 3:17,20. When voting for a man you are voting for his policies, ideals, beliefs and actions; whether revealed or hidden. Too often you will see a man, once in office, change his position or act in opposition to Christian principles. By doing so men often set their hand against God and His values i.e. abortion, assisted suicide, sexual liberation etc. The question I ask myself is, "Do I want to stand with man's government or hold on to my heavenly citizenship?" In my view God wins.

Charitas

Posted: November 03, 2008 5:36 PM


Hansen discusses many factual elements however misses the point altogether regarding the placement and purpose of Christ's Church. It's not about Catholics, reformation, Mega, et al. It's about Christ, His bride and and her duties until He returns.

Bob - Pennsylvania

Posted: November 03, 2008 4:38 PM

I've been having a great deal of trouble with Senator Obama's truthfulness (or lack of it!). He says he went to Trinity UCC Church generally twice a month. He was there for 20 years. Pastor Wright (of "God damn America" fame) performed the senator's wedding, and baptized his children. The senator and his pastor visited Libya and it's dictator together. And Mr. William Ayers, who was part of the Weather Underground when the Senator was just 8, and who is "just a guy who lives in the same neighborhood", just happens to serve on several of the same boards with him, and did go to visit Venezuela's President-virtual dictator in 2006 (surely the senator knows about that), and he did blurb Mr. Ayer's book, and he did provide instruction to ACORN, and was the second highest recipient of contributions to his campaign from Freddie Mae (or was it Fannie Mac?) which lobbied lending industries to make loans to less than credit worthy mortgage seekers, etc., etc. How support such a candldate

Martin-Australia

Posted: November 03, 2008 4:27 PM

Actually Roger with only roughly half of the eligible voters exercising their right to vote in the US no wonder Christians on both sides of the political spectrum are upset at the result depending on who wins an election. If there actually was a 90%+ turnout there could well be a chance that a 3rd Party or Independent candidate could get up & change the whole approach. It also doesn't help that unlike here in Australia where we have a consistent method of voting at a national level, as well as it being compulsory it makes even the local political process in the US more important. If in one county they have electronic voting & in another they have the hole-punch variety there is no way that you will get any consistency. Pencil & paper always tends to work very well here. BTW, I am involved in Independent politics here in Australia. www.australianindependentscoalition.org

Roger - Australia

Posted: November 03, 2008 4:06 PM

I am disappointed to see that Christians on this blog seem to still want to follow conservative party lines and vote for McCain. Unfortunately (to the dismay of most of the rest of the world) your domestic politics greatly affects the rest of the world (it shouldn't be that way, but it is the political and economic reality of the present). From an international perspective, McCain looks like a lame-duck, has-been - a George doubleya clone, and that worries the rest of the world. I am traditionally a conservative voter in Australia, but Obama seems like a more articulate, intelligent and contemporary world leader. Use you brains and don't vote just on traditional party lines. Christians don't always have to vote for the most conservative candidate. You will inflict your choices on the rest of the world.

matt stephens

Posted: November 03, 2008 1:51 PM

Craig, you use academic terminology, but you're arguing nonsense. What point are you trying to prove by highlighting the fact that English words were not penned by 1st century Greeks? Are you quibbling with the tendency of some to call the meeting place of churches "churches"? The NT authors define the word ekklesia in their own usage, which is specifically religious. Did the NT form of church look significantly different from modern forms of church? Without a doubt. And insofar as modern churches have abandoned ecclesiastical essentials, critiques are sorely needed.

Michelle

Posted: November 03, 2008 1:20 PM


Thanks, Craig. I agree with the sentiment in your statement.

Craig

Posted: November 03, 2008 1:00 PM

Church: A word not actually found in the Greek New Testament. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Medieval Greek krikon, from Late Greek kriakon (dma), the Lord's (house), neuter of Greek kriakos, of the lord, from krios, lord; see keu- in Indo-European roots The actual word tranlated Church is: Ekklesia a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly The context tells you what kind of public assembly it is, whether it's a group of believers or a group of rioters! So why is it that the religious interpretors of the New Testament Greek used a word that isn't actually in the scriptures for ekklesia? Church means "house of God", public assembly means public assembly. :-) So a meeting of believers a Denny's that meets in Jesus' name is an ekklesia of Christ. We're a lot more religious than we think we are; it appears that we give more weight to our traditions than we do to the truth.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment