Dec 27 2007
If this is true, what happened to majority rule?
[M & C]
The latest Gallup poll and reporter Frank Newport recently analyzed the current percentage of Americans today identify with a Christian religion. About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion.
Read about it here.
[From me]
First, I don’t believe there are that many Christians. Just because some says they are doesn’t mean they follow Jesus. But if this is true, why do the laws seem to be changing to favor those who aren’t Christians?
What do you think?
16 responses so far
This post seems to be a 2-for, so I’ll respond in 2 parts. Firstly,
How should someone like me know who is a true Christian? Should I presume that evangelicals are true Christians, then accept their definitions? Or should I presume that Mormons are true Christians, then accept theirs? Or should I presume that the Eastern Orthodox are true Christians, then accept theirs?
And secondly,
Throughout American history, there has been a back-and-forth battle between dominionist Christians (those who want to exert religious dominance over society)… and everybody else. There seems to be a correlation between the dominionists’ success and conservative political climates. Conservative climates tend to prevail in uncertain times, like in bad economies or in times of military threat. Liberal climates tend to emerge during times of peace and prosperity. I think we are currently in the process of swinging back from a conservative climate - we haven’t passed the pendulum’s center yet but I think the momentum is in that direction.
A3,
Great question. The way I know if someone is a follower of Jesus is if they act like Him.
Sorry, I forgot to comment on the title of the post:
Every society that is governed by majority rule does not automatically degenerate into a mob rule controlled by a majoritarian tyranny. To avoid mob rule, the principal of equal rights are decided by separate acts. These acts form a basis for future decisions and so they preserve individual rights.
Kevin,
My question was: “how can I know?” In this case, why should I prefer your perception of what Jesus was like (and thus what his followers should be like) over the perception of a Mormon or Eastern Orthodox, or a Bible historian for example?
A3,
Here is what Jesus said:
Matthew 22:37-40
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
So, my answer has nothing to do with what I believe but what Jesus said. If a person truly follows Jesus then they will follow His commands. If a person truly is a follower of Jesus the Holy Spirit lives in them & they will act like Jesus. They won’t gossip about people. They won’t try to destroy them-they will build people up & forgive. They won’t gripe & complain. They won’t be selfish. They will do whatever it takes to please Jesus.
My experience is there are a lot of people in churches who don’t act like Jesus. I believe this greives Jesus.
Kevin,
Jesus was just quoting Moses and Hillel, so in essence, He was commanding us to do what Moses and Hillel commanded (at least on those 2 points): Deu 6:5 - “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” and Lev 19:18 “… thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Some 100+ years before Jesus was born, Hillel said: “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.” . Many Jews follow those commandments admirably. Would you consider them Christians?
I don’t know of any Christian denominations (including those I mentioned earlier) who don’t try to follow those commandments. Are they true Christians?
Are these the only 2 commandments (Mat 22:37-40) that one needs to follow to be a Christian, or are there others? What if a person just follows some of Jesus’ commands (or they just follow the 2 commandments some of the time)? Is he still a Christian?
A3,
Good questions. The problem with your questions are that if you love God with all your heart it must include Jesus because He is God.
So, the only people who can attain eternal life according to Jesus are people who put their trust & faith in Jesus. That means you must love God & love people. That is the evidence of a follower of Jesus.
ASKANATHEIST,
You said, “How should someone like me know who is a true Christian?” Check it out by what Christ said for yourself, not by what we say or different churches teach. He sets the standard. Your eternal destiny hinges on the truth you accept.
Christians should go by God and their understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Yes there so called Christians and Christian groups who distort and twist the Bible to justify their own desires and actions. These are the false teachers, Jesus warned us that would come. This does not change the Bible but it does distort and confuse how outsiders view God, the Bible and Christians.
The Bible is written in definite languages (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic), whose words have definite meanings. Our job is to use the laws of language, grammar and
the culture at the time to understand what it meant to the people living at the time and to now understand how that applies to us today.
According to my studies, there is very little disagreement even among scholars as to the actual meaning of what the Bible words say. The main ways to change the Bible is to take away from it (Liberals) , add to it (Mormons, etc) or discount it (atheistic evolution, etc).
The way any majority rules is by the STANDARD (Their view of TRUTH) they use.
In the French Revolution, the mob in their majority rule made their rules up as they wished and as they were directed by those atheistic leaders at the top. This resulted in massive bloodshed, as it did later in the Russian Revolution and later in Germany under Hitler, later in China and in most places where atheism has ruled. Hundreds of millions have been slaughtered by atheistic regimes in the last 100 years.
Today they want to rule again. I fear what could happen here if we are to go by what has happened under their rule in the last 100 years. What standard will they use?
A Russian friend of mine and his wife were top Physics Professors in Leningrad. He later worked in top levels in their defense industry ( I can’t say what, because he has been threated by the KGB). He was wealthy, owning three car and a luxurious home. He was at the top academically, professionally and monetarily. Still, something was missing.
He told me that when he was outside one night looking up at the stars, he said to himself, “There must be a God”. He had a God experience but could not get a Bible to read for twenty years. He attended some Orthodox churches but they did nothing for him. When he finally got a Bible, he read it but couldn’t understand it. He was confused. A little later, he and his family were invited to hear a missionary. They all four made commitments of their lives to Christ and today live here in the US, getting out miraculously during the Yelsen years.
To find God, talk to Him. Say,
“God , I want to know you. If you exist, reveal yourself to me and I will give my life to you.”
Frank
I make the distinction between “cultural” Christianity, which is the tendency of people, particularly in Western Civilization, to identify with a particular religious background related to their ancestry or upbringing, and “confessing” Christianity, which is a faith that is alive, and part of a person’s life, and which they practice by depending on the Holy Spirit to live their life in Christ’s footsteps.
There is no doubt that a majority of Americans can identify with a branch of Christianity from their heritage, but I think Barna’s surveys show that only about a third of us can be found worshipping in church during any given week, and even that is not really a measure of whether or not we are Holy Spirit led Christ followers.
As far as being “in the majority” goes in terms of law, our constitution still protects our free exercise of religion. What we have seen happen in the last thirty or so years is the realization that the dominance of Christianity in the country had produced laws which made Christians and the practice of Christianity “more equal” than other religions. I’m not aware of any laws passed that are restricting our free exercise. There is no law that can stop a student from praying in school, for example, only public praying in the classroom is restricted, but then, the only reference I find to public prayer in the scripture is a negative one. Look at the negative reaction that came from allowing a Muslim cleric to pray before a session of Congress, yet, in a culture where Islam is equally protected under the constitution, to restrict a Muslim would not be fair, or constitutional. The only other option is for there to be no prayer at all.
I guess I spent too many years teaching history and civics not to respond with a long answer. America is a democratic republic, and as a republic, it does not operate on majority rule. That’s a fallacy. It operates on the principle of equal treatment under the law, and while the majority does make decisions through the ballot box, equal treatment requires the respecting of the rights of the minority, even if it is a minority of one. That’s the way the law reads. The way we elect our president is a good example of that. Rather than a single national election, with the winner being the one that gets the majority of votes, each state holds and election for electors committed to the national candidate. This changes the whole power structure. Our current President Bush would not have been elected in 2000 if the majority ruled. Laws are not made by initiative, but by Congress, and are then subject to the President’s signature or veto, and then any minority has the right to have the courts examine any law which they feel restricts their constitutional rights. That’s the way our founding fathers, many of them who were members of minority religions, nationalities or groups, wanted it.
I think the bigger question before the church these days is how do we reach the people who claim our name but shun the practice. As Southern Baptists, we have 10 million people on our church rolls who we can’t even find. We need to work on that problem.
Kevin,
Since Mormons and Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, include Jesus when they say they love God, then they must be true Christians, right?
Frank,
There is another other main way that one can distort the Bible - by imposting a context that the original authors did not intend. Liberal Christians, for example, would hold that they are taking nothing away, they are simply preserving the meaning that the authors originally intended. They would further charge that fundamentalist Christians are adding a plenary verbal context that was never understood or intended by the original authors.
The standard I’ve seen consistently used in the US is established law (with the exceptions of the KKK in the old days and abortion-clinic murders in more recent history, etc.) Watchdog groups like the ACLJ and the MRFF fight their battles in the courtrooms, not in the streets. The rule of law seems to be alive and well. I don’t see any reason to fear that anything like the inquisition or crusades will return to the USA any time soon.
Lee,
Agreed. Judging who is and who is not Christian, among those groups who earnestly claim that they are Christian, is no trivial task.
Good points about majority rule vs. a republic. But isn’t a republic still a type of majority rule where the majority indirectly controls the government through elected officials? For example, compare our style of republic with a republic that only allowed white males land owners to vote. That style of republic would not be governed by majority rule. Note that I am not suggesting that majority rule is the same as mob rule - in fact, I’m suggesting the opposite (see post #3 above)
I think the possibility of electing a president with a minority of votes via the electoral college is more of a glitch in the machinery than an alternate system of government.
Very good points about the practice of Christianity being “more equal” - I think you are right.
I must comment on the KGB and the athesism in Russia . . . I am married to a Russian, yes he was KGB. You mention the Russian Orthodox and not having a Bible. This simply is not true. My husband is Orthodox and can quote more scripture than I can. There are several churches even within Red Square! The Church of the Redeemer. The Church of Spilled Blood. Of course they have churches and bibles. And what about St. Vascilly’s (Americans refer to it as St. Basil’s)? These people were exposed to the FIRST churches ever. The church began in the East!
This is a revealing topic…and a sticky one…
I think in our culture we have major problems defining things…
Some people’s view of Christianity includes a bible, a jesus, and a church, but very different from Jesus, The Bible, and The Church…
As surely as I am going to be called arrogant, and negative for saying it… many people’s definition of Christianity, and of christ have no bearing in truth… but are self made renditions of the truth…
There are some many Jesus’s out there today is it any wonder how confusing it is for those who have heard the name Jesus, but have seem Him defined so many different ways?
These are strange times in history… never have so many professed Christ (or rather a Christ), and Christianity, and never has morality, and Christian living been at such a low in our culture…
Interesting to say the least, but I agree with you Kev.. there is some gap in those prefessing and the reality of the Christian culture in America…
A constitutional republic is rule by the majority, via the elected representatives, but written into our constitution are the protected rights of all citizens, which are equal. Thus Christianity is to be no more protected than any other religion, which means that if I am to be free to practice my faith as I feel led by the Holy Spirit, then other citizens must also be free to practice their religions as they feel led. By the same token, Christianity must also not be singled out and restricted either, nor should the adherents of any other religion. So we have majority rule, but it is limited by the protection of the rights of the minority. And as I said, I haven’t really seen an example where laws have been passed that interfere with the free exercise of the Christian faith.
I have lived in a community where the population was overwhelmingly Mormon, and thus, all of the law enforcement, elected officials, city government, school board and everything else was totally Mormon. In local and even county matters, it was a tyranny that could hardly be controlled. I would certainly hope that I would never agree to be part of a Christian majority that imposed itself so prevalently, just because it could.
Lee,
I think we’re in violent agreement
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Majority_rule_and_minority_rights
I agree with you on this one too - that’s also my perception.
Hear, hear!! I feel the same way in cases where I’m in the majority.
Frank Bussey,
So you think there is very little dispute over the words of the Bible. As to what they are, no not much but as to what they mean, there is a great deal of conflict.
And as for your insulting slam that Liberals take away and Mormons add, let me tell you, that Conservative Christians are just as guilty as any Liberal I have ever met! I see them picking and choosing what verses to focus on with great abandon.
For example. Conservative Christians add to the scripture regularity by saying that Gambling is a sin, yet that is not in the Word.
They say you can not use ANY alcohol, yet clearly the Scriptures are replete with people using it, even Jesus. And as a matter of fact, even the Communion that they use is with grape juice instead of wine as Christ used.
They say you can’t smoke, that isn’t in the Word either.
The entire “left behind” theology is based on severe twisting of major sections of Scripture to fit into the whole mindset that has been pushed in dispensational theology, that only a small portion of the Church as ever accepted, and is only 150 or so years old. The fictional books that are viewed as “gospel” by so many Conservatives are huge leaps of fancy only in the slightest way connected to actual Christian Scriptures.
That is only a couple of ways that Conservative Christians “add” to the Scriptures, and they act as though they are the only ones who have a clear view of God’s Holy Word. Well, I am not so willing to let that go unchallenged anymore. Maybe I should restrict myself to Liberal blogs were you would not have to see a divergent viewpoint.
I don’t mind disputing claims, but I do get tired of insults from conservatives who act as though Liberal Christians don’t have a strong faith, we do. We just understand it differently than you do.
Monk in Training,
You paint “conservatives” with a broad brush. I doubt that a majority of “conservatives” whom I define as those who accept the whole Bible as the divinely inspired, authoritative, written Word of God, accept the things you have attributed to them here, including dispensational premillenialism.
Most “conservatives” wrestle with issues such as these, but in practice, while some leaders may be vocal, and thus, on the record regarding these things, the average conservative Christian in the pew isn’t mindlessly accepting whatever those leaders say.
I’ll agree with Frank, that there is very little disagreement over the text of the Bible, in terms of both the text we have today being as close to the words of the original authors as can be measured, and in terms of translation. The disagreement comes over application, and that is related to the weight they are given in terms of their authority. Personally, I believe the whole Bible is divinely inspired, and authoritative, and as such, it provides its own means of interpretation, with the interpretive standard being the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan in the person of Jesus the Messiah. I’m not exactly interested in whatever label that may place on me.