Note:
A Theocon is not a Conservative Theologian. A Theocon is a person who espouses secular political issues based on an agenda of trying to mandate obedience to a religious viewpoint. A Theocon can be part of any religion. Two examples: If a member of a Muslim religion believes that keeping a Mouse as a pet violates Sharia law, he might try to get a law passed which prohibits any one, regardless of religion from keeping a Mouse as a pet. If a protestant thinks that operating a business on Sunday violates the Bible’s teachings, he might try to get a law passed prohibiting all business owners from opening for business on Sunday.
This letter is only to those who are members of religions which teach that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
Hello,
This blog is not intended as a venue for religious discussions. Therefore, it will be rare that articles will appear on this blog which quote from the Bible and which use the Bible in order to substantiate positions.
However, this article is an exception to this rule. In fact, this article will focus almost entirely on religious arguments which are based on the Bible.
The apostle Paul says in the second epistle to Corinth:
“For though we walk in the flesh we do not walk according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but powerful in God for pulling down strongholds …“
Secular political mandates are not those things which Paul calls “the weapons of our warfare.” “The weapons of our warfare” are the words of persuasion which are found in the Gospel message. The Gospel message addresses itself to the heart of the hearer for the purpose of attempting to change his viewpoint and persuade him to yield his will to the reign of Jesus.
Secular mandates do not convince anyone of anything. Instead they have the effect of creating the same kind of outward appearance for which Jesus rebuked the religious leaders among whom he lived. Your attempts to impose restrictions upon those who do not share your beliefs creates an outward appearance and may even result in hypocrisy among those unconvinced who are attempting to ‘fit in” with the artificial culture which you are attempting to create.
Did any of the apostles or the faithful of the first century attempt to campaign for city laws imposing the Lord’s teachings upon the unconverted pagans?
Just as those of us who believe in Jesus are opposed to any laws which attempt to prohibit us from obeying Him (not that we would yield to such persecution) it is also improper for us to try to force others to disobey their religious convictions as long as those religious convictions do not involve the harming of another human being, the theft or destruction of another’s property, the defrauding of another, the enslavement or restriction of another human’s freedom or rights of citizenship, the depriving of another human of an appeal to objective justice or violence against our nation.
Just as the first century Christians who lived outside of Palestine were living among neighbors who were polytheistic, so we also live in a nation which has a variety of religions and life philosophies. Trying to create laws which are based on doctrines which were intended only for the converted is both a perversion of the Gospel message and a stumbling block to those who might otherwise hearken to the word.
It is also counterproductive to attempt to create laws which promote symbolism over substance. The mandating of Ten Commandment memorials does not cause Judges to rule based upon the Ten Commandments nor does it cause citizens to adhere to them. Creating an issue over something which is merely symbolic and which does not further the cause of Christ is not fighting the good fight of faith. It also destroys the credibility of any attempts to create secular coalitions for the furtherance of conservative laws and the eliminating of socialistic, totalitarian and post-modernistic laws.
A historical example of symbolism over substance was the insertion of the term “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance. (Personally, my own Allegiance to the USA is subsidiary to my allegiance to God.) Adding those two words, changed nothing concerning the USA except to make the pledge an irritant to those who are unconvinced.
Unless you are of the political persuasion that every citizen of the USA who does not believe in Jesus must be deported to a different country, you will not be able to create a “christian nation” through the imposition of carnal secular laws - therefore, for the sake of the effectiveness of those things which can be accomplished through secular laws and for the sake of avoiding the creation of resentment in the hearts of those who might otherwise be converted to the Gospel, please quit trying to fight a spiritual warfare through the carnal government.
If you are a Republican - would you prefer to mandate that all atheist must vote against Republicans? Would that make you happier? Some of the statements made by Theocons in the Republican party make me think that they would prefer that no one who is an unbeliever ever vote in support of a candidate who is a member of the Republican party.
If you are a Republican would you refuse to vote for Abraham Lincoln? Later in life, Lincoln did believe in an Almighty Being, however there is some question as to whether he believed that Jesus of Nazareth was Deity.
If you are a Republican, would you support a movement to refuse the nomination of a State or the National Party to someone who did not believe in Jesus?
I say all of this as one who believes that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
