Twenty Theses Toward a Bible-Centered Political Philosophy

[clmyers]

Hello, everyone. I'm new here, but I'd like to subject something that I've been working on for a long time to your cross-examination. For a few years now, I've been studying the political and economic thought of various individuals and groups pretty heavily, and evaluating the information I've gleaned to Scriptural principles, with the aim of developing a rigorously thought-out, distinctively Christian social and political philosophy. In the past couple of weeks, I've distilled and codified my views into twenty theses. These theses are still tentative and therefore open to further criticism, insights, and modification, but it's my belief that I've finally hit upon that which I've been seeking to develop. I'll post the "Theses" below. Feel free to criticize and dissect to your heart's content; there are some things, undoubtedly, that will require further substantiation and proof (but they are tentative theses, after all). Without any further adieu, here they are:

1. Christianity is the only true worldview because it is the only worldview which is not ultimately incoherent. By this I mean: First, that Christianity is the only worldview that is not ultimately self-contradictory and, second, that Christianity is the only worldview which does not ultimately contradict historical and scientific facts.

2. If #1 is true, then it follows that: there is a personal, transcendent God possessed of attributes such as love, goodness, wrath, mercy, justice, grace, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, faithfulness, aseity, etc.; that this God has revealed Himself in the Bible; that this God has revealed the true nature of all things (including human nature) in the Bible; that this God has also revealed His moral and ethical standards in the Bible.

3. If #2 is true, then we are constrained to accept and obey what the Bible says in all things; to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to allow the Bible to shape our views of all things, including our own thoughts and practical experiences, rather than vice versa.

4. The Bible tells us that man is fallen into sin, is born innately hostile to God and His laws, and is incapable of doing anything that in God’s sight would be regarded as good, apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

5. The Bible also makes plain that God has “put a check upon” man’s evil through common grace. In other words, God has not allowed mankind to live out the fullest extent of his depravity. Thus, human beings, while inherently wicked and bearing wicked fruit, are capable of works that from a human standpoint appear good or benevolent: philanthropy, kindness, charity, cooperation, etc.

6. Given mankind’s wickedness, and despite our ability to cooperate with one another, it is still unwise to invest one individual or small, elite group of individuals with inordinate political power. As C. S. Lewis said, it is not a good idea to give one man “irresponsible power over his fellows.” It follows, then, that political power should be as decentralized and diffused as possible. That is, some form of political democracy would work best. Thus, one function of government is to keep individuals from harming one another.

7. To keep a government’s laws from becoming arbitrary and subject to easy manipulation, it is best to codify those laws in some sort of constitution.

8. To protect the rights of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority,” and to keep one particular group within the government from obtaining inordinate power, it is best to adopt a federal system allowing for separation of powers and judicial review.

9. Since direct democracy is impractical over large areas and large groups of people, it is best to use a system of republican government.
10. Since government officials may be corrupt, it is best to provide for an orderly system of popular initiative, referendum, and recall at all levels of government.

11. Since the Bible teaches that the poor and helpless must be cared for, poverty and oppression should be fought through a combination of private charities and domestic programs.

12. Just as giving one individual “irresponsible [political] power over his fellows” almost always ends in political tyranny, it is equally true that giving one person “irresponsible [economic] power over his fellows” can and does lead to an economic tyranny and oppression of sorts. That is, human depravity manifests itself in the economic sphere in a lack of concern for biblically-mandated social justice.

13. One alternative to “unregulated” and “unfettered” capitalism is the protection of workers’ rights through governmental supervision and regulation of business enterprises. The problem with this, however, is that government regulations are often out of touch with workers’ real, day-to-day needs and concerns.

14. Another alternative to “unregulated” and “unfettered” capitalism is the organization of workers into unions to bargain with the bosses. The problem with this approach, though, is that union leadership often tends to become corrupted and compromised, and is also out of touch with real workers’ concerns.

15. The best approach is to democratize the workplace through the organization of the workers into democratic workers’ councils. These can use either direct democracy or a system of democratically-chosen, recallable delegates.

16. Since economic planning tends to be inefficient in the long run, it is best to allow the aforementioned workers’ councils to operate within a (more or less) free market. Thus, the government should intervene in economic affairs as little as possible.

17. Individual liberty should be safeguarded, but not because of humanistic theories of “natural rights,” “self-ownership,” “absolute individual autonomy,” etc. The reason for this is that the Bible teaches that only God is entirely sovereign, and that human beings are expected to submit themselves to His laws.

18. Though there is nothing necessarily objectionable to Christian theonomism from a strictly theological standpoint, practical experience tells us that such an intermarriage of church and state power tends to lead to the compromise and corruption of Christian leadership, as well as the encouragement of legalism at the popular level. Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that a group purporting to be truly Christian, but actually teaching or espousing heresy, could become the “institutional church,” and consequently be a very powerful tool of Satan.

19. Based on #17 and #18, then, the best approach is to allow individual liberty—including the liberty to disobey or reject God’s law—and to limit the government’s role solely to that of preventing individuals or groups from harming one another.

20. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Christian to submit to whatever government under which he finds himself place by God’s sovereign care, so long as he is not asked to do anything that is either in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, or in contradiction to anything that can be deduced from Scriptural principles. Even in cases where Christians are required by the law of God to disobey the law of man, believers should never engage in any sort of violent revolution or rebellion. Christians are instead limited to calling attention to and speaking out against injustice wherever it may manifest itself through individual discussions, sermons, speeches, lectures, peaceful protests, and demonstrations. Thus, the Christian is really neither a revolutionist nor a reformist, but should instead be both courageously prophetic and humbly submissive.

 

[Axioma]

Setting aside the first point...

9. This is no longer the 18th century. Direct democracy is problematic when the fastest way information can travel from one corner of a country to the other is by giving a guy a letter and a fast horse, but these days, we can do a little better than that.

13. Wouldn't you say that a bigger problem isn't the government being out of touch with the real needs of workers, but the government being influenced by those who would exploit those workers? After all, history has shown us that governments will turn the guns on striking workers far more often than they will on rich owners of corporations.

15. Please explain how these councils differ from unions.

16. Free markets are also rather inefficient, in fact they're extremely inefficient. Free markets would be the perfect system if all the actors in a free market were both always rational, and possessed perfect information about the entire market. Since this is obviously never going to be the case, particularly since many people will have a financial interest in keeping information from you so that they can profit, there is inefficiency. Also, the free market has no self-correcting mechanism, necessitating government intervention, otherwise, well, things spiral out of control.

 

[DeathMagus]

Your primary position is incredibly unsupported. What good is it to look at the rest of your post when the first point has nothing to back it?

 

[clmyers]

Well, I don't know what happened. I was in the middle of typing a huge response post and it all just got deleted all of a sudden. I'll reconstruct what I remember as best I can. (By the way, thanks for responding so quickly.)

@DeathMagus:

I wouldn't say that my first point is unsupported. True, I didn't detail anything to substantiate my position, but since that was an initial post, I decided to leave it that way and respond only if someone challenged it. To give you a good response, though, I need to know the exact formulation of your challenge to #1. That is, is it coming from the standpoint of an atheistic worldview? From an agnostic viewpoint? Or from, say, Eastern philosophy? When that preliminary question is answered, I can give you a more specific response.

@Axioma:

Regarding #9: I agree that today we are better equipped to handle something like direct democracy on a massive scale than was the case two hundred years ago. However, though something like computer technology might best facilitate direct democratic governance, I'm still not totally convinced it's best to go that route yet. Why? Because it's too easy, at present, to hack into and manipulate computer technology. If a foolproof system is ever developed, I'd prefer that to republicanism. Until then, republicanism is the best way to go. (Unless, of course, we're talking about the Marxist concept of the "higher stage of communism," i.e., the classless, stateless society, in which case I prefer a free federation of communist, directly democratic polities. But I'll leave that aside for the moment.)

Regarding #13: Yes, I would say that that's really the bigger issue. But, even if you reject that Marxian understanding of the capitalist state (which, for the record, I don't), it's still possible to prefer socialism to capitalism by virtue of the fact that the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington (and elsewhere) are too far removed from the daily activities of the average workplace to know what rules, regulations, and policies work best with each. That decision, I think, is best left to the workers who (under my preferred brand of socialism) would self-manage their workplaces.

Regarding #15: Well, I'd say, generally speaking, that unions don't challenge the idea of private ownership of the means of production and distribution. That is, they ultimately only provide a way to keep the capitalist class from running roughshod over the workers in the class struggle, and therefore do not pursue the idea of a classless society. Workers' councils, on the other hand, are one means of ending the capitalists' domination of the MOP. (The other is called "state socialism," and is generally associated with the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.) This is accomplished by putting the workers directly in control of the MOP, thus ending the class war in favor of the workers and creating a classless society. So, to put it more simply: Unions accept capitalism, but seek to look out for the interests of workes within capitalist society; workers' councils, though, aim to replace capitalism with socialism, thereby finally emancipating the working classes. I will note, though, that some socialist groups (e.g., anarcho-syndicalists) see the unions as the best means for the overthrow of capitalism, though this is still very much a topic of debate amongst socialists.

Regarding #16: True, free markets are sometimes inefficient. I'm certainly not impressed with the alternative, though (central planning). The free market has a much better track record (has proven to be more productive, more resilient, more friendly to--at least--political democracy, etc.) than central planning, so I think it's the best way to go. Now, I'm not naive about this, though: Even some of the most committed capitalist libertarians (F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, to mention two) understood that occasional government intervention in the economy is sometimes necessary. Their central concern was to define what would be considered legitimate and illegitimate intervention, and to limit that intervention as much as possible. Not totally, but, again, as much as possible. So, that being said, I'm open to that idea, too; my point was just that it's not a good idea to give the government an exclusive, or even simply a dominant, role in economic affairs. Let the workers run the economy, bottom-up, through democratic workers' councils.

I hope that clears up some stuff.

--Chris

 

[DeathMagus]

@DeathMagus:

I wouldn't say that my first point is unsupported. True, I didn't detail anything to substantiate my position, but since that was an initial post, I decided to leave it that way and respond only if someone challenged it. To give you a good response, though, I need to know the exact formulation of your challenge to #1. That is, is it coming from the standpoint of an atheistic worldview? From an agnostic viewpoint? Or from, say, Eastern philosophy? When that preliminary question is answered, I can give you a more specific response.

Unfortunately, I run into the same sort of issue in being specific with my critique. As I'm sure you know, there are as many variations of Christianity as there are adherents. I'll need to know how you're defining Christianity before I reasonably bring specific inconsistencies to the table.

 

[clmyers]

Unfortunately, I run into the same sort of issue in being specific with my critique. As I'm sure you know, there are as many variations of Christianity as there are adherents. I'll need to know how you're defining Christianity before I reasonably bring specific inconsistencies to the table.

I see where you're coming from. I'll give you a brief outline of my theological views (but note that this is just an outline, and there are nuances that will probably come out as a result of further discussion):

1. I believe that there is, in fact, a God.

2. I believe that this God possesses the attributes either explicitly stated in the Bible or deducible from the Bible, such as being personal, transcendent, holy, good, loving, merciful, gracious, just, wrathful, self-sufficient, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, the Creator of all, and Trinitarian in nature. (If I left out anything, it's purely by oversight, and I'll deal with it later.)

3. I believe that this God can be known, and that theological statements are not ultimately meaningless (contra logical positivism, e.g.).

4. I believe that this God has revealed Himself in the Bible (Old and New Testaments).

5. I believe that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and truly the Word of God. That is, I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.

6. In the Bible, we have the record of mankind's fall into sin, and the proof of our inability to "regain" a right standing with God by our own efforts. (Here, I hold to a specifically Calvinist view of human nature and sinfulness, meaning that I believe that not only is a person unable to earn the righteousness that God requires for salvation, but he or she is unwilling to do so, as well. So, simply put, I don't believe in free will, at least in the popular usage of the term.)

7. God has a right to receive glory from His creatures and to refuse to share that glory with anyone or anything else (which is, according to the Bible, exactly what sin is, a glorification of something other than God), and He, being just, is perfectly right to punish those who refuse to glorify Him.

8. God, being gracious, has provided an offer of salvation--an offer that we do not deserve--by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, apart from any good works that we can do.

9. Speaking of Jesus: He was a real, historical figure, whose life is recorded in the Bible. He was virgin-born, truly God, and truly man, lived a perfect life, was crucified, and was resurrected from the dead, as recorded in the Bible. Being truly God, Jesus was born untainted by the sin nature, as we are tainted; being truly man, Jesus was able to "stand in" for sinful mankind and act as our Representative, obeying God's law on our behalf; in obeying perfectly, the way has been opened for Jesus' perfect righteousness to be forensically credited to us, thereby providing us with a "legal innocence" in God's eyes (despite the reality of our sinfulness); in dying on the Cross, Jesus bore the wrath of God in our place, which we should have received for our affront to God's glory, thereby satisfying God's justice and opening the way for God to forensically declare that the required punishment has been paid; in His resurrection, Jesus not only provides believers with hope of their own, future resurrection and eternal life, but also proved His own testimony to the fact that He is the Son of God and the Savior.

10. As stated above, we are saved by trust (faith) in Jesus, that He will be our Perfect Representative before the judgment seat of God. However, since we are born inherently unwilling to believe, a supernatural act of God the Holy Spirit (called regeneration) is required to give us a heart that, rather than disparaging and fleeing from Jesus, causes us to see Him aright, love Him, and accept His offer of salvation.

11. I believe that, once thus saved, God will enable us to persevere in the faith and continually grow toward conformity to Christ's image, so that we are eternally secure.

12. I believe that, though true Christians continue to grow in obedience to God, we often fail on that account, but are protected by Christ's never-failing righteousness and eternally-efficacious propitiation.

13. I believe that there are many who claim the name of Christ but, through a lack of evidence of growth in obedience and, instead, a being characterized by the "works of the flesh" rather than the "fruits of the Spirit," are most likely only nominal Christians, in whom no real spiritual change has taken place.

That's about all that I can think of that most likely pertains to our present discussion (and probably even a little more than pertains to this discussion). Let me know if that helps.

--Chris

 

[ArnautDaniel]

So we go from unfounded metaphysical speculation to undistinguished americo-centric political speculation....

This what you get when you wrap the Bible in an American flag.

Some random bronze age texts + apple pie = liberty and justice for all.

 

[DeathMagus]

I see where you're coming from. I'll give you a brief outline of my theological views (but note that this is just an outline, and there are nuances that will probably come out as a result of further discussion):

1. I believe that there is, in fact, a God.

2. I believe that this God possesses the attributes either explicitly stated in the Bible (or deducible from the Bible), such as being personal, transcendent, holy, good, loving, merciful, gracious, just, wrathful, self-sufficient, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, the Creator of all, and Trinitarian in nature. (If I left out anything, it's purely by oversight, and I'll deal with it later.)

3. I believe that this God can be known, and that theological statements are not ultimately meaningless (contra logical positivism, e.g.).

4. I believe that this God has revealed Himself in the Bible (Old and New Testaments).

5. I believe that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and truly the Word of God. That is, I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.

6. In the Bible, we have the record of mankind's fall into sin, and the proof of our inability to "regain" a right standing with God by our own efforts. (Here, I hold to a specifically Calvinist view of human nature and sinfulness, meaning that I believe that not only is a person unable to earn the righteousness that God requires for salvation, but he or she is unwilling to do so, as well. So, simply put, I don't believe in free will, at least in the popular usage of the term.)

7. God has a right to receive glory from His creatures and to refuse to share that glory with anyone or anything else (which is, according to the Bible, exactly what sin is, a glorification of something other than God), and He, being just, is perfectly right to punish those who refuse to glorify Him.

8. God, being gracious, has provided an offer of salvation--an offer that we do not deserve--by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, apart from any good works that we can do.

9. Speaking of Jesus: He was a real, historical figure, whose life is recorded in the Bible. He was virgin-born, truly God, and truly man, lived a perfect life, was crucified, and was resurrected from the dead, as recorded in the Bible. Being truly God, Jesus was born untainted by the sin nature, as we are tainted; being truly man, Jesus was able to "stand in" for sinful mankind and act as our Representative, obeying God's law on our behalf; in obeying perfectly, the way has been opened for Jesus' perfect righteousness to be forensically credited to us, thereby providing us with a "legal innocence" in God's eyes (despite the reality of our sinfulness); in dying on the Cross, Jesus bore the wrath of God in our place, which we should have received for our affront to God's glory, thereby satisfying God's justice and opening the way for God to forensically declare that the required punishment has been paid; in His resurrection, Jesus not only provides believers with hope of their own, future resurrection and eternal life, but also proved His own testimony to the fact that He is the Son of God and the Savior.

10. As stated above, we are saved by trust (faith) in Jesus, that He will be our Perfect Representative before the judgment seat of God. However, since we are born inherently unwilling to believe, a supernatural act of God the Holy Spirit (called regeneration) is required to give us a heart that, rather than disparaging and fleeing from Jesus, causes us to see Him aright, love Him, and accept His offer of salvation.

11. I believe that, once thus saved, God will enable us to persevere in the faith and continually grow toward conformity to Christ's image, so that we are eternally secure.

12. I believe that, though true Christians continue to grow in obedience to God, we often fail on that account, but are protected by Christ's never-failing righteousness and eternally-efficacious propitiation.

13. I believe that there are many who claim the name of Christ but, through a lack of evidence of growth in obedience and, instead, a being characterized by the "works of the flesh" rather than the "fruits of the Spirit," are most likely only nominal Christians, in whom no real spiritual change has taken place.

That's about all that I can think of that most likely pertains to our present discussion (and probably even a little more than pertains to this discussion). Let me know if that helps.

--Chris

Wonderful - I didn't expect such a complete treatment. Thanks.

Let's start with something fairly straightforward. Your first point is that Christianity is the only worldview that is internally consistent, as well as consistent with historical/scientific fact. However, in order for such things as virgin births, creation, the Trinity, Jesus' dual nature, etc to be possible, we require someone that can hand-wave the typical rules - a god figure.

Thus, you seem to be saying that Christianity is externally consistent so long as we can invoke a god figure to smooth over all the inconsistencies - which is to say that it's not really externally consistent at all.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

3. I believe that this God can be known, and that theological statements are not ultimately meaningless (contra logical positivism, e.g.).

Hmmmm...how can a statement possibly be considered meaningful when for virtually every term you have to add in a little "oh but in a theological context this doesn't quite mean what most people mean by it elsewhere", or "oh we made up this word to mean exactly what we want it to mean theologically, but we have to define it in terms of words that don't mean quite what they do in ordinary language"?

 

[nolongerhome]

1. Christianity is the only true worldview because it is the only worldview which is not ultimately incoherent. By this I mean: First, that Christianity is the only worldview that is not ultimately self-contradictory and, second, that Christianity is the only worldview which does not ultimately contradict historical and scientific facts.

I don't think you are off to an auspicious start with this one. You have a long way to go to prove to me that Christianity does not contradict historial and scientific facts, let alone that it is internally consistent.

What do you think is incoherent about, say, agnosticism?

2. If #1 is true, then it follows that: there is a personal, transcendent God possessed of attributes such as love, goodness, wrath, mercy, justice, grace, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, faithfulness, aseity, etc.; that this God has revealed Himself in the Bible; that this God has revealed the true nature of all things (including human nature) in the Bible; that this God has also revealed His moral and ethical standards in the Bible.

Obviously the "If #1 is true" is yet to be proven, so we have to take all this with a large grain of salt too.

If there is in fact a transcendent deity, you will still need to prove that it is the Christian God (and then you will need to prove which Christian God it is, because hanging around here for a while you get the idea that not everyone is talking about the same transcendent deity).

3. If #2 is true, then we are constrained to accept and obey what the Bible says in all things; to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to allow the Bible to shape our views of all things, including our own thoughts and practical experiences, rather than vice versa.

As above, the first two propositions are yet to be proven. Until they are there is no reason to accept this one.

4. The Bible tells us that man is fallen into sin, is born innately hostile to God and His laws, and is incapable of doing anything that in God’s sight would be regarded as good, apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

... or this one...

5. The Bible also makes plain that God has “put a check upon” man’s evil through common grace. In other words, God has not allowed mankind to live out the fullest extent of his depravity. Thus, human beings, while inherently wicked and bearing wicked fruit, are capable of works that from a human standpoint appear good or benevolent: philanthropy, kindness, charity, cooperation, etc.

... or this one...

6. Given mankind’s wickedness, and despite our ability to cooperate with one another, it is still unwise to invest one individual or small, elite group of individuals with inordinate political power. As C. S. Lewis said, it is not a good idea to give one man “irresponsible power over his fellows.” It follows, then, that political power should be as decentralized and diffused as possible. That is, some form of political democracy would work best. Thus, one function of government is to keep individuals from harming one another.

I don't think that it is necessary to beleive in the Biblical account of the wickedness of mankind do accept this.

7. To keep a government’s laws from becoming arbitrary and subject to easy manipulation, it is best to codify those laws in some sort of constitution.

Yes and no. I mean on the one hand codifying laws in a constitution does not necessarily stop laws from being arbitrary and subject to manipulation, while on the other consitutions must necessarily be able to adapt to changes as necessary. This could be an interesting discussion to have, certainly, but I don't see why any reference to the Bible would be needed (and indeed, in this point you provide none).

8. To protect the rights of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority,” and to keep one particular group within the government from obtaining inordinate power, it is best to adopt a federal system allowing for separation of powers and judicial review.

In principle minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. How best to ensure this, however, is something that could be discussed. Again, as above, such a discussion would need no reference to the bible.

9. Since direct democracy is impractical over large areas and large groups of people, it is best to use a system of republican government.

This is coming to my specific area of interest (political philosophy with an eye to future methods of democratic organisation and decision making). Changes in communication technology render a number of old arguments against direct democracy largelly void, but it still faces major issues, including the issue you expressed in point 8.

By republican government I take it that you mean representative democracy, such as that currently practiced in the western world and countries that have emulated that practice? It is indeed better than basically all other forms of government going around at the moment, I would say, but it is not without its flaws.

Again, no need to bring the Bible into this.

10. Since government officials may be corrupt, it is best to provide for an orderly system of popular initiative, referendum, and recall at all levels of government.

This seems to confirm that you were thinking about the current representative democracies we see today. In such a system citizens clearly need to have the ability to ensure those that represent them do so in a proper manner.

Again, no need to bring the Bible into this.

11. Since the Bible teaches that the poor and helpless must be cared for, poverty and oppression should be fought through a combination of private charities and domestic programs.

I don't see why one should need the Bible to teach that the poor and helpless should be cared for them to believe it to be true. I don't know why you would feel that our obligation to our fellow man should be limited by largelly arbitrary national boundaries as you seem to be suggesting here. I know of nothing in the Bible that would lead to that conclusion.

So, I don't think the Bible is necessary for the general point to be valid and I don't think your specific solution is necessarily Biblical.

12. Just as giving one individual “irresponsible [political] power over his fellows” almost always ends in political tyranny, it is equally true that giving one person “irresponsible [economic] power over his fellows” can and does lead to an economic tyranny and oppression of sorts. That is, human depravity manifests itself in the economic sphere in a lack of concern for biblically-mandated social justice.

I don't see why the two words "Biblically-mandated" are necessary in this point.

13. One alternative to “unregulated” and “unfettered” capitalism is the protection of workers’ rights through governmental supervision and regulation of business enterprises. The problem with this, however, is that government regulations are often out of touch with workers’ real, day-to-day needs and concerns.

14. Another alternative to “unregulated” and “unfettered” capitalism is the organization of workers into unions to bargain with the bosses. The problem with this approach, though, is that union leadership often tends to become corrupted and compromised, and is also out of touch with real workers’ concerns.

15. The best approach is to democratize the workplace through the organization of the workers into democratic workers’ councils. These can use either direct democracy or a system of democratically-chosen, recallable delegates.

16. Since economic planning tends to be inefficient in the long run, it is best to allow the aforementioned workers’ councils to operate within a (more or less) free market. Thus, the government should intervene in economic affairs as little as possible.

I'll take these ones all together. There is clearly no perfect system of economic organisation - we see that unfettered capitalism leads to the widening of the gap between those that have and those that have not, a gap which leads to what you labelled in point 12 as “irresponsible [economic] power over his fellows”. You are right to point out problems with government intervention and the unionisation of the workforce - while these no doubt bring certain benefits, they can also bring detriments too.

As there is no perfect economic system, though, the fact that some solutions have flaws is not a reason to discount them completely - it is a reason to look at the good they can do and develop means by which the bad they do can be minimised.

I think your solution, a democratised workforce/economy, is the kind of thinking that should be pursued, though I think it also needs to be pointed out that what you seem to be suggesting simply shifts the location governmental oversight/planning, and as such doesn't necessarily fix the issues, it just relocates them and splits, which also means that this is not really the same kind of "free market" that people would assume if you used the concept today. This is an area where I think exciting work is being done, but there is a long way to go before we are in a position to describe the kinds of institutions that such a system would require (and indeed to show how these institutions are qualitatively different from the current institutions of the market and of government intervention).

17. Individual liberty should be safeguarded, but not because of humanistic theories of “natural rights,” “self-ownership,” “absolute individual autonomy,” etc. The reason for this is that the Bible teaches that only God is entirely sovereign, and that human beings are expected to submit themselves to His laws.

If only God is sovereign, why should individual liberty be safeguarded? I don't follow that argument, unless you are saying that because God has outlined his morality we must follow it, because he is sovereign, and that morality includes a respect for individual liberty.

If that is the case, I think, as above, there isn't really a need to bring God into the equation here. Individual liberty should be safeguarded because it provides the foundation for all of the political organisation that has been outlined earlier.

18. Though there is nothing necessarily objectionable to Christian theonomism from a strictly theological standpoint, practical experience tells us that such an intermarriage of church and state power tends to lead to the compromise and corruption of Christian leadership, as well as the encouragement of legalism at the popular level. Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that a group purporting to be truly Christian, but actually teaching or espousing heresy, could become the “institutional church,” and consequently be a very powerful tool of Satan.

I find this an odd point, particularly when there is such a vast array of different groups who would have themselves be the "institutional church" and believe that only they are "truly Christian". It seems clear that there is a long way to go before we know which church (if indeed there is one at all, or, if there is one, that is a Christian one and not another religion) would be the one that ought to be followed. In such a situation, it is clear that there should be no relation between the church and the state because there is no such thing as "the church", understood as the clear, single, true human organisation for following the will of the transcedent deity (whose existence we have yet to determine).

19. Based on #17 and #18, then, the best approach is to allow individual liberty—including the liberty to disobey or reject God’s law—and to limit the government’s role solely to that of preventing individuals or groups from harming one another.

We clearly agree here, based on my comments on the last point, that the Church and the State should not be one and the same.

It is incredibly puzzling, therefore, why the premise of your theses was to specifically create a political philosophy that WAS in fact guided by a single Religion.

20. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Christian to submit to whatever government under which he finds himself place by God’s sovereign care, so long as he is not asked to do anything that is either in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, or in contradiction to anything that can be deduced from Scriptural principles. Even in cases where Christians are required by the law of God to disobey the law of man, believers should never engage in any sort of violent revolution or rebellion. Christians are instead limited to calling attention to and speaking out against injustice wherever it may manifest itself through individual discussions, sermons, speeches, lectures, peaceful protests, and demonstrations. Thus, the Christian is really neither a revolutionist nor a reformist, but should instead be both courageously prophetic and humbly submissive.

And in our last point we get a good dose of Christian Stoicism.

If we are to live in a dynamic polity, and if we are to try to start to implement some of the things that you have outlined above, I don't see how you can take on this rather detached view.

I think that we have moved beyond the divine right of the sovereign, and we are better for it - democracy, which you are a supporter of, would not have existed for us today if we had not moved beyond the concept.

I am not a supporter of violence, but I don't think that violent action needs to be contrasted simply being "courageously prophetic and humbly submissive" - there is a middle ground that ought to be followed, indeed must be followed if change is going to come.

I don't see why one needs to be a Christian to be against the use of violence.

 

[nolongerhome]

My last part was cut off, so here it is:

So, overall, I think your first few points are irrelevant and not really sustainable in any reasonable way, you have some good comments about democracy, the further democratisation of the world, particularly the economy, and individual liberty, all of which either have unnecessary Biblical references or no Biblical references at all, and also provide reason to believe that the governing principles of humanking should not be tied to any particular religion, which undermines the reason for you making this attempt at creating a "Bible-centered political philosophy" in the first place.

So, I think there is a clear way to improve upon your theses - remove all mention of Christianity and find immanent human (rather than transcedent deist) reasons to believe that liberty and democracy should be our guiding principles - it isn't very hard to do.

 

[citizenthom]

First I'll say that I'm disappointed in this thread so far. Most of the atheists/agnostics on here are respectful off the fact that this is a Christian board, and a lot of the topics are directed at Christians. This is the first time I've seen anyone post "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] UR RONG CUZ THAR NO GODD!"-type stuff. The topic pretty clearly says this is a discussion from a Christian worldview. We all get that you're going to disagree if you don't have one. You contribute nothing to the conversation by pointing out the obvious.

6. Given mankind’s wickedness, and despite our ability to cooperate with one another, it is still unwise to invest one individual or small, elite group of individuals with inordinate political power. As C. S. Lewis said, it is not a good idea to give one man “irresponsible power over his fellows.” It follows, then, that political power should be as decentralized and diffused as possible. That is, some form of political democracy would work best. Thus, one function of government is to keep individuals from harming one another.

I think Biblical ideas point more to diverse decision-making than numerous decision-makers. Israel separated out its military leadership from its religious (priestly) leadership, and God usually picked prophets from neither leadership group. The New Testament model for the church separates out spiritual leaders (pastors) from administrators and from service-oriented laymen (gifts like prophecy, tongues, music, etc.) You don't necessarily need a whole lot of people in each capacity to avoid corruption, just strong leaders in each.

In other words, I think Biblical ideas can translate to forms of government other than representative democracy as long as you don't have a single figurehead who dominates the others, like the kings of Israel ultimately did.

I have the same general comment about points 7-10: they're good ideas, but Biblical principles can be satisfied other ways. In the NT, for instance, there are far more restrictions on the character of church leaders than on what they can and can't do. There, putting good men in office is a satisfactory check on power without any written restrictions.

[/quote]11. Since the Bible teaches that the poor and helpless must be cared for, poverty and oppression should be fought through a combination of private charities and domestic programs.[/quote]

I strongly disagree with this. Nowhere does the Bible say that these goals must be accomplished through an arm of the state. Israel was charged with carrying out God's mission on its own initiative, but not any other government. For the Gentiles, God's work should be done by God's people, Caesar's work by Caesar's.

In general, I think your other points, except for #20, are more informed by American political norms than anything particularly Biblical. But I think it's good for you to be interested in finding Biblical roots for your political ideas. Just dig deeper.

 

[clmyers]

Wow. I'm appreciative that you all have been so ready to discuss this topic, and so courteously, too, I might add. (I've been on some forums where it's gotten so rough I've had to take my leave after a while...) But man, oh man! Looks like I've got quite a bit of responding to do. I guess I'll just say it now: If, in responding to all that has been said so far, I fail to respond to a particular question that's been raised that you really would like to see answered, just let me know. But I'll try to hit all the high points this time around. OK, here goes...

@ArnautDaniel:

Americo-centric, huh? Really? Would you mind pointing out precisely what I've said up to this point that's "americo-centric"? Since I am from the US, it's probably true that my political thinking has been influenced by American political thinkers (or those from whom American political thinkers drew their ideas). But I am in no way providing an apologetic of any sort for the "American system." And I don't really see how I'm "wrapping up the Bible in an American flag." Please explain further.

Now, as for the fact that theological terminology often differs in meaning from the common usage of the same words, I don't find that to be a compelling argument in favor of the meaninglessness of theological language. After all, doesn't every discipline use its own, special terminology that differs from popular usage? Take, for instance, the word "capital." Depending on the context, that could mean either a.) the chief city of a polity (politics), b.) the highest form of punishment (jurisprudence), or c.) resources that businesses use (economics). You have to determine the proper meaning from the context, and not only that, you have to determine how each speaker/author within each context is using the word. (An example of this would be the economic term "private property," which means different things to capitalists and Marxists.) Would one argue, then, that the economic use of the term "capital" is meaningless? I don't think so.

So, if theologians use the word "justification," for example, in a very different way from that in which it's used outside of theology, that doesn't mean that the theological usage of the term is meaningless. The meanings of all words must be determined by the contexts in which they're used.

Now, maybe I've misunderstood your point. If so, I'm open to being corrected.

@DeathMagus:

Sorry for the over-explanation of my theological views. I'm kind of bad about that...

Anyway, in response to your point about the conformity of Christianity to scientific and historical facts, I guess I could summarize by saying this: It's not that I believe that Christianity isn't externally consistent, but your critique has made clear to me that I made a serious misstep in stating what I did. I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I posted that. So, I've modified my view.

Essentially, I believe it is erroneous to supposedly neutral facts (historical, scientific, or otherwise) back to Christianity. Facts, by themselves, however numerous, are really unintelligible; it's a person's worldview that gives meaning to facts, by providing the grid through which they are interpreted. So, you can have two people looking at the exact same facts, but Person A interprets them from an atheistic worldview and Person B from a theistic worldview, so that, in the end, the two individuals arrive at (most likely) radically different conclusions. (For example, the atheist might conclude, "The evidence clearly proves the truth of evolution," while the Christian might conclude, "The evidence clearly proves the truth of young-earth Creationism," though both are looking at the exact same evidence.)

My approach is, then, to demonstrate the internal consistency of the Christian worldview and to demonstrate the internal inconsistency of opposing worldviews. You'd be right to point out that implied in my view is a rejection of the idea that there is a "killer argument" for Christianity. I don't think there really is; it's just a matter of subjecting each worldview to close scrutiny and choosing the one that best stands the test. Thus, if it can be proven that Christianity is internally consistent while atheism is not, it is most reasonable to accept Christianity as true and reject atheism; if, on the other hand, atheism can be shown to be internally consistent while Christianity is shown to be interally inconsistent, then atheism must be accepted as the most reasonable worldview. But this issue must be solved, then, before one can even begin to interpret facts.

By the way, all that reminds me: You never did give me a general picture of your worldview. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, do you think you could provide one?

@nolongerhome:

Thank you for your insights. I think that you'd be surprised to know that the two of us are more agreed than you realize. I agree, for example, that it is indeed possible to reach the same conclusions I've reached regarding political/economic issues from an entirely non-Christian viewpoint, like Utilitarianism. Furthermore, one of my favorite political thinkers, Alexander Berkman, argued that things like democracy, social justice, and economic cooperation would be preserved by self-interest, though he rejected theism altogether (at least so far as I know). (Also, I have a vague recollection of Peter Kropotkin making a similar argument based on evolutionary biology, but the exact reference escapes me at the moment.) So yes, again, I agree that, from a certain standpoint, it might not be necessary to bring the Bible into the discussion.

However, my aim was more to determine whether such conclusions could be considered legitimate based on biblical principles. In other words, I wanted to determine whether or not I could, for instance, consistently hold to Christian theology (especially Calvinist theology) and socialism. (Though, when I set out to answer such questions, I knew that there were Christian socialists, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that they were being theologically consistent. After all, for every Christian that argues that socialism is compatible with biblical principles, you're likely to encounter ten that will passionately argue that opposing view. At least, that's been my experience so far.)

I do have two questions, though: First, could you further explain what you meant in saying "...what you seem to be suggesting simply shifts the location governmental oversight/planning, and as such doesn't necessarily fix the issues, it just relocates them and splits..."? Second, could you further define what precise type of agnosticism you're referring to? It's easier to give you a good response that way. As far as my particular theological views, just see my response to DeathMagus.

--Chris

 

[Axioma]

I strongly disagree with this. Nowhere does the Bible say that these goals must be accomplished through an arm of the state. Israel was charged with carrying out God's mission on its own initiative, but not any other government. For the Gentiles, God's work should be done by God's people, Caesar's work by Caesar's.

But we're all supposed to be children of God, aren't we? Even people in charge of the place. Wouldn't you say that the REASON they're put in charge of the place is to accomplish things through the arm of the state? I mean, you have a state! And it has an arm! You might as well use it to, you know, improve people's lives and stuff.

Also yes, as an atheist, I am ignoring the first half of the points, because I naturally disagree with them, but arguing over them would lead nowhere, and I think we can have a more interesting conversation about the other points.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Americo-centric, huh? Really? Would you mind pointing out precisely what I've said up to this point that's "americo-centric"? Since I am from the US, it's probably true that my political thinking has been influenced by American political thinkers (or those from whom American political thinkers drew their ideas). But I am in no way providing an apologetic of any sort for the "American system." And I don't really see how I'm "wrapping up the Bible in an American flag." Please explain further.

Sorry, the jump from theological thinking to the need for a "written Constitution" strikes me as characteristically American leap of logic. It strikes me as stemming from certain American tendencies to elevate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to an almost scriptural status.

Thereafter, quite a bit of it reads like an attempt to elevate American political theory to some kind of Platonic form of ideal government.

Now, as for the fact that theological terminology often differs in meaning from the common usage of the same words, I don't find that to be a compelling argument in favor of the meaninglessness of theological language. After all, doesn't every discipline use its own, special terminology that differs from popular usage? Take, for instance, the word "capital." Depending on the context, that could mean either a.) the chief city of a polity (politics), b.) the highest form of punishment (jurisprudence), or c.) resources that businesses use (economics). You have to determine the proper meaning from the context, and not only that, you have to determine how each speaker/author within each context is using the word. (An example of this would be the economic term "private property," which means different things to capitalists and Marxists.) Would one argue, then, that the economic use of the term "capital" is meaningless? I don't think so.

So, if theologians use the word "justification," for example, in a very different way from that in which it's used outside of theology, that doesn't mean that the theological usage of the term is meaningless. The meanings of all words must be determined by the contexts in which they're used.

Now, maybe I've misunderstood your point. If so, I'm open to being corrected.

Those usages are relatively concrete.

Let's take a simple Christian theological/metaphysical concept - "begotten".

Well in conventional usage to "beget" is to impregnate, or for a man to get a child on a woman.

Of course none of this applies to the usage in Christian theology of the Father begetting the Son (which here is an eternal relationship within the trinity, and doesn't refer to the incarnation). This has no relation to the conventional meaning, and is simply a clever term for "the relation the Son bears to the Father", seeming to contain some kind of additional meaning, but really having none.

What possible meaning can the notion of the Father begetting the Son throughout eternity have?

 

[Kalevalatar]

The first question that crossed my mind after having read your OP/headline was if you are familiar with Christian democracy? CD is a major political force in Europe and to reflect this, currently has the majority in the European Parliament. Oh, and it's also my political affliation.

Christian Democracy
Basic Principles:

1.1. Lasting value base of Christian democracy

The Christian Democrats want to ensure that our democratic society is built on Christian values. By Christian values we mean the universal and lasting values which arise from the Bible and the Christian heritage, and form the basis of a good, functioning community.

• respect of human dignity,
• the importance of family and close communities,
• defending the weak,
• encouraging resourcefulness
• and individual and collective responsibility, not just for themselves but also for their neighbours and the rest of creation.

1.2. Principles of the Christian Democrats

Political decision-making is all about our values. The decision makers' values are seen in the choices they make which are then reflected both in laws passed and in economic decisions. Experience has shown that society doesn't function healthily if it rejects the universal ethical base of the Ten Commandments and the golden rule of loving one's neighbour.

On the basis of its values, the Party seeks to influence and serve every area of society. It does so through the party's local organisations, young people's, women's, Swedish language and immigrants' groups, alongside the work of the central party office.

The word "Christian" in the party name refers to a deliberate attempt to further basic Christian values and act on them in societal decision-making. The Christian faith is not a political ideology, but Christian democracy is. The Christian Democrats aim to justify their views in such a way that everyone, regardless of their world view, can understand their reasoning.

In politics our emphases are different from those of the churches. As a political party, the Christian Democrats do not take a stance on doctrines of the churches or other religious groups. The Christian Democrats pay attention to the societal-ethical statements made by Christian churches and congregations but remain independent in political decision-making.
Societal questions often have several different solutions which can be justifiably pursued or defended. In seeking such answers we have to be as unprejudiced, co-operative and creative as we can be. Scientific research is needed, but it is insufficient to form the basis of decisions. We need decision-makers who represent the will of the people but who evaluate affairs holistically and from the point of view of different groups in the nation. Decision-makers have to examine the issues carefully, listen respectfully to people's views and to the best of their ability try to fulfil the promises they made in the election campaign.

Whenever possible, the Christian Democrats want to co-operate with groups whose aims are similar, for we recognise that it is possible to come to conclusions close to Christian Democratic thinking from other value bases. The Party wants to arbitrate in conflicts of interest and build mutual understanding between the different sections of our society.

The word "democratic" in the party name refers to the fact that the Christian Democrats want to further the way democracy functions in an active citizens' society. We want to ensure that all those eligible can choose their local and parliamentary representatives in free elections to make decisions about common affairs. It is necessary to have openness and public discussion in political activity, so that voters can evaluate the candidates and how they act in decision making.

Without permanent values, the consciences of even the majority in society can be mistaken with serious consequences. We must not take moral relativism as the basis of democracy. So, instead of pluralism and relative values, the Christian Democrats emphasise that fundamental life-protecting values apply to everyone.

Democracy is only a tool. The populace can find public administration burdensome if political decision-makers exploit it to their own advantage and not for the benefit of all. Christian Democracy opposes all forms of totalitarianism and concentration of power that is outside the influence of ordinary people. Hence, the sharing of power between the legislative, executive and judiciary branches, together with a multi-faceted media prevents the concentration of power in the hands of single decision-makers or groups.

1.3. Every human being is unique

The central value of the Christian Democrats is human dignity, based on God's work of creation. Everyone is a unique and indispensable individual. Human dignity is based on a person's being, not on their doing or abilities. It is priceless, regardless of gender, age, position, religion, origin of birth or other criteria.

Human life and dignity is to be respected right from conception to natural death. The starting point of Christian Democrats is always to be on the side of life, be it in the use of human embryos, abortion or euthanasia. Respecting and protecting life must be the principle also when defining the limits of scientific research.

According to the Christian democratic view of humanity, a person is the sum of his or her physical, psychological, spiritual and social aspects. Everyone should be enabled to grow in a balanced way in all these areas of life.

Acknowledging human dignity leads to human rights which have been listed in documents such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, on children's rights, on removing discrimination against women. Basic needs, such as food, housing, a safe environment, health care and education as well as work to provide an adequate livelihood must be secured for everyone. The Christian Democrats want to cherish all the above, and will act particularly on protecting the rights of those who are treated contrary to their human dignity.

Human rights are always connected with obligations and responsibilities. The right to life brings with it the obligation to protect it. To the right of freedom of expression belongs the obligation to be honest. The right to education means an obligation to self development. Also, from the right to have an adequate livelihood it follows that an individual is responsible for seeking employment, provided the person is able to do so and work is available.

A totally self-centred view of freedom often means freedom only for the strong while the weak are left bereft of it. Christian Democracy emphasises that human freedom and responsibility are inseparably interlinked. Every human being is responsible for their chosen actions not only to other people but also to God. Because every human being is imperfect and fallible, we need continuous self evaluation. This also concerns the Party as a community.

1.4. Family - society's basic unit

The family is everyone's first community - a place where one grows up to be a member of society, to take responsibility for oneself and others. At home, children and young people should experience basic security, lasting values and a good start in life. The family is a society's basic unit whose well-being or malaise affects the whole of society.

Legally, the family consists of couple or mother, father and children, either biologically or socially, or a single parent and his or her children. Thinking extensively, the grandparents and other near relatives also belong to the family, although they may not live in the same household. A person living alone can be thought to belong to this family community formed of near relatives.

The Christian Democrats hold the view that marriage, based on a woman's and a man's equal companionship, is the best form relationship for a couple. A good marriage is built on mutual love, respect and responsibility. The society should favour attitudes that further faithfulness and commitment.

A marriage is also the best relationship in which children can develop. Parents have the right and a duty to bring up their children, which society should support by its own actions and legislation. Parents need time and be able to take part in a child's life. With various family allowances we must create the prerequisites for a balanced family life and for the families' own choices and, for example, different forms of children's day care.

The mutual relationship of the parents is the basis of the child's real home. Its permanence and well-being are important. If this is not realized, a society has to help the children, and the adults raising them, in such a way that the children suffer as little as possible from a parent's inadequacies or problems. Those caring for children, be they single parents, joint custodians or the parents of families formed from previous marriages need society's full support.

Legislation must safeguard as every child's starting point the right to a mother and a father. A same sex registered relationship must not to be considered equal to a marriage.

1.5. Joint responsibility for our neighbours

A society's values are shown by how it treats its weaker members, such as the elderly and the disabled. Responsibility for needy members of the community is based on the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. It can be called the principle of joint responsibility. Acting for the common good and on behalf of the weaker members of our society comes before self interest. Joint responsibility is the result of people's attitudes and life decisions. A just and caring society is not born unless individual citizens take other people into account in their decisions.

The principle of joint responsibility extends beyond the borders of our home country. Wherever there is oppression and injustice we must work for change that furthers the realization of human dignity. It is characteristic of the Christian Democrats to take responsibility for those living in great poverty in developing countries, the victims of wars and natural catastrophes and refugees. The responsibility reaches also to future generations. We must build our society socially, spiritually and ecologically enduring so that the life of future generations will not suffer because of the choices we make.

1.6. Citizens' activity promotes well-being

In the opinion of the Christian Democrats, decisions must be made as near as possible to those they affect. The use of power ought always to be decentralized when it is reasonably possible. According to the principle of grass roots decision-making, the responsibility for furthering the common good must be shared in a balanced way between the authorities and public sector and people's free alliances as well as between a family and individuals.

The society ought to assist its citizens to take responsibility for themselves and close relatives. In a hierarchy of decision- making a higher player must not carry out the task when the lower one is able to get the work done himself. But the higher player must always to support the lower one. This principle springs from the demand for joint responsibility. Accordingly, those people, families and communities who need help to get through are entitled to have support. Through the help and the way it is implemented, our aim must be to enable the needy to get quickly on their own feet whenever possible.

The Christian Democrats emphasize the central meaning of citizens' activities as part of a functioning welfare society. The state and local authorities are to support the activities of our citizens' society and not replace it. We must promote the citizen, community initiatives and freedom expressed responsibly. Society's support must treat different, comparable communities impartially, taking into account to what degree they advance the common good and enduring values. All players are to take equality into account, and so understanding this must be increased in all decision-making and administration.

In addition to local government, the state and the European Union must also support the citizens' society. Finland's Christian Democrats want to develop EU-level co-operation only in issues where the EU promotes the common good or enables greater national measures to advance well-being and security. This means strict commitment to the principle of grass roots decision-making. Accordingly, the EU will use its jurisdiction only if its activities produce additional benefit to the member countries' national activities. The Christian Democrats appreciate the importance of international associations such as the United Nations for security and for furthering worldwide well-being.

 

[Kalevalatar]

1.7. The ground rules of a just economy

The Christian Democrats are in favour of a social and ecological market economy where the society sets the framework that regulates economic activities. A social market economy defines the values of its activities respecting human dignity. It seeks the common good and looks after the interests of both producers and customers. An ecological market economy takes into account nature's resilience and acts on its terms.

Honest entrepreneurship and other work create a basis for financing welfare services. The Christian Democrats want to promote entrepreneurship and create in society an environment that encourages and values it. There should be no extremes in property, salaries or perks. Private ownership and the right to inherit are an important part of an individual's and a family's independence.

Workers have to be treated with respect and not as means of production. They have the right to form unions and through them watch over the interests of their job contracts, ensuring that they earn a reasonable livelihood. Work of equal value must bring equal pay.

The public sector has a primary role in producing basic services but it is good to supplement it with private services. In some areas of production state ownership must have priority because it is connected with a great public service which is important for society's welfare and safety.

1.8. Responsibility for the environment is an obligation

The value of creation comes from its Creator and obliges everyone to take responsibility for the environment. The Christian Democrats want to secure a clean and balanced environment for coming generations. Animals must be treated well, and the countless species of living organism have to be protected from becoming extinct. Pollution of water, land and air must be reduced considerably and we must be capable of controlling global warming.

1.9. International co-operation brings peace

The Christian Democrats have a positive attitude to international co-operation and also want to work in furthering basic Christian values in the European Union and in international politics. Finland's Christian Democrats (KD) is an associate member of European People's Party (EPP). It is important that there is close co-operation particularly between Nordic Christian Democrats' sister parties. Finland's Christian Democrats want to renew and crystallize the values of the international Christian Democratic movement.

Cherishing a peaceful and stable international environment presupposes co-operation with other nations. Healthy nationalism, valuing the work of previous generations and the inheritance of our own culture create a good basis for meeting people coming from different cultures. A positive attitude to other nations and immigrants is a characteristic trait of Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats have also always been interested in the events of Middle East and in the position of Israel.

The worldwide integration of the economy creates new markets and economic co-operation, but it challenges countries with a high income and social security to adjust to a new kind of work- sharing when there is competition in investment and jobs. In spite of the challenges to adjust, the Christian Democrats support deregulation of the world economy in such a way that the less developed countries' economies can also grow.
The Christian Democrats work in order that human rights would be respected everywhere and that both women and men would have equal possibilities to influence social affairs. We must increase the work and effectiveness of international organisations, above all the United Nations and its organisations for peace, human rights and other aims which further the world's well-being.

Peace is largely the result of justice; poverty and injustice lead to war and to the destruction of natural resources. We must quickly reduce extreme poverty in the world and prevent deaths that are caused by malnutrition, lack of clean drinking water or easily preventable diseases. All children must have access to education. Rich countries must help the inhabitants of developing countries to rise from their distress to a life of human dignity. The Christian Democrats are committed to the UN's millennium goal and to increase Finland's and the whole EU area's development aid to 0,7 percent of their gross national product.


Kalevalatar

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1. Christianity is the only true worldview because it is the only worldview which is not ultimately incoherent. By this I mean: First, that Christianity is the only worldview that is not ultimately self-contradictory and, second, that Christianity is the only worldview which does not ultimately contradict historical and scientific facts.

]

Actually, it depends which version of Christianity you are here speaking of. Creationist accounts, for example, do contradict with historical and scientific facts. And there are some contradictions in Christianity that threaten, though not severely, its coherence as a world-view.

2. If #1 is true, then it follows that: there is a personal, transcendent God possessed of attributes such as love, goodness, wrath, mercy, justice, grace, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, faithfulness, aseity, etc.; that this God has revealed Himself in the Bible; that this God has revealed the true nature of all things (including human nature) in the Bible; that this God has also revealed His moral and ethical standards in the Bible.

Here is a common contradiction in the principle of ascribing omnipotence to God. It is commonly used by Atheists. Can God make a stone that he can't move?

3. If #2 is true, then we are constrained to accept and obey what the Bible says in all things; to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to allow the Bible to shape our views of all things, including our own thoughts and practical experiences, rather than vice versa.


Fair enough. But what of things that the Bible makes no mention of? For example the ideas of Democracy and a Republic and freedom of speech.

15. The best approach is to democratize the workplace through the organization of the workers into democratic workers’ councils. These can use either direct democracy or a system of democratically-chosen, recallable delegates.

Sounds good.

Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that a group purporting to be truly Christian, but actually teaching or espousing heresy, could become the “institutional church,” and consequently be a very powerful tool of Satan.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Very wise observation.

20. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Christian to submit to whatever government under which he finds himself place by God’s sovereign care, so long as he is not asked to do anything that is either in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, or in contradiction to anything that can be deduced from Scriptural principles. Even in cases where Christians are required by the law of God to disobey the law of man, believers should never engage in any sort of violent revolution or rebellion. Christians are instead limited to calling attention to and speaking out against injustice wherever it may manifest itself through individual discussions, sermons, speeches, lectures, peaceful protests, and demonstrations. Thus, the Christian is really neither a revolutionist nor a reformist, but should instead be both courageously prophetic and humbly submissive.

If a Christian finds himself under tyrannical government, does that mean that he does not have the right, as professed in the Declaration of Independence, to abolish it?

 

[Montalban]

Let's start with something fairly straightforward. Your first point is that Christianity is the only worldview that is internally consistent, as well as consistent with historical/scientific fact. However, in order for such things as virgin births, creation, the Trinity, Jesus' dual nature, etc to be possible, we require someone that can hand-wave the typical rules - a god figure.

Thus, you seem to be saying that Christianity is externally consistent so long as we can invoke a god figure to smooth over all the inconsistencies - which is to say that it's not really externally consistent at all.

If there is a God then things that you think are untypical wouldn't necessarily be implausible.

It would be externally consistant for miracles to happen.

 

[Montalban]

Actually, it depends which version of Christianity you are here speaking of. Creationist accounts, for example, do contradict with historical and scientific facts.

What historical facts are you talking about? History is usually considered that which is written.

When I studied evolution our course was 'pre-History', and we were told, for instance, history in Australia generally begins in 1788 because that's when written accounts began (with the minor exceptions of previous earlier explorers).

And there are some contradictions in Christianity that threaten, though not severely, its coherence as a world-view.

What contradictions are you talking about?

Here is a common contradiction in the principle of ascribing omnipotence to God. It is commonly used by Atheists. Can God make a stone that he can't move?

Word play doesn't help. I can say something is indescribable, but I've just described it. Paradoxes exist. I can know that things are unknowable. For instance I can know what the average peasant ate for breakfast in 1421 but may not know what a particular peasant ate for breakfast on 4 June 1421 - that is an unknowable. God too, is ultimately unknowable - but we know of Him.