Christians are required by God to perform different tasks depending upon the times, the country or even the city in which they live. For example, look at the different commands given the different churches in Revelation chapter 2: God told the persecuted church at Smyrna only to "be faithful to death." But to the other churches, God had many different commands such as "do the first works" (v. 5) and to overcome and keep God's works to the end" (v. 26).Saintopher said:
I think all Christians should be against legal abortion. But I do not think that God thinks that all Christians should protest the way I do. A Christian mother has a responsibility before God to raise her children to grow up to be godly adults. If she continually gets arrested in Operation Rescue sit-ins, her children will grow up with their mother not at home because she would be behind bars instead. I think a Christian mother who acted like that would be sinning. See my point? Not every command is for every believer at all times, in every nation, in any circumstance.
The circumstances the first century church was under was very different than the circumstance you and I are under. How would Christians who were persecuted in the Soviet Gulags supposed to be involved in social issues? Such a task would not have only been impossible, it would also have been foolish. Persecuted Christians have in the past worshipped in catacombs. During those times they weren't exactly open-air street preachers. Do you think those Christians were sinning for protecting their lives like that when many Christians in America today do perform such public street evangelism? Would you tell them that it shouldn't make any difference how hard it is? Would you tell the persecuted church of Smyrna in Revelation chapter 2 that God was wrong for not giving them the same commands that He gave the other churches?
In the Soviet Union Christians were forbidden to set up benefit societies, offer material aid to their members, organize children's groups for prayer and other purposes or general biblical, lilterary or handicraft groups for the purpose of work or religious instruction or to arrange excursions and kindergartens, nor open libraries or reading rooms, nor start hospitals or provide medical aid. All these things Christians in America do. Do you think every single one of those persecuted Russian Christians should have all risked their lives and done those things anyway? No? Well guess what? The first century church, to whom Paul wrote, was born in an era of the same kind of oppression.
In a nation under repressive domination, the most immediate need of the Christian community is Christian literature, worship, prayer and keeping their meager efforts secret, not social reform that has little chance of success.
However, once the Soviet Union fell, Christians were at the forefront of many of the efforts to topple communism and bring about reform. When they had an opportunity to institute reforms, they took it. Laszlo Tokes, the Hungarian pastor who sparked the Romanian revolution, stated that Eastern Europe was not just in a political revolution but a religious renaissance. The reports that reached the western news media had references to "Jesus," the "Christian spirit," and Czechoslovakia's role as the "spiritual crossroads of Europe."
It was not enough for these Christians to be free to worship. They also wanted to participate in every facet of their nation's life. The church in Czechoslovakia did not take a hands-off approach to social issues once the Iron Curtain began to fall. The Christian leadership saw it as their duty to bring about change to the broader culture.
Do you think those Eastern European Christians were sinning? Additionally, our founding fathers sure did effect some political change and many of them were Christians. Do you think our Christian founding fathers were behaving unbiblically?
A couple more things on this issue: If Jesus set Himself up as a social reformer, what office would He have sought? He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He would have had to have taken a step down in order to obtain an earthly position, but not us. For most of us it's a step up. And in that regard, Jesus told His disciples that when the scribes and Pharisees "sit in the seat of Moses," that is, when they speak true to Moses, they should do and observe all that the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, and do." (Matthew 23:1-3) In other words, Jesus told his disciples that Moses (ie. the Old Testament) is authoritative. Jesus didn't tell them to honour the Old Testament except for the part about the proper societal laws (and punishments) in the book of Exodus.
Additionally, so what if Jesus was not a social reformer. Are we supposed to follow Jesus' example in everything? Jesus had no wife or children. Should we follow His example in that? Jesus never owned a house. So should we all live like nomads? By following Jesus' example, Christians have the authority to take possession of other people's property because of need. Jesus told His disciples that if anyone asked why they were taking a donkey and a colt, they were to say, "The Lord has need of them." (Matthew 21:3)
First Timothy 1:8-11 says, "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"
Sounds almost like Paul was advocating a theonomy, huh?
Could it be that left wing Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance? Just a question that I would like to throw out.
