What are the political implications of Christian doctrine?

[Haven]

Social scientists and historians have long known that Christianity (defined as organized, church-based Protestantism, [Eastern] Orthodoxy, or Catholicism) has been associated -- at least since the Middle Ages -- with political conservatism. The traditional right in Europe was heavily invested in the church and Christian belief, and churches (of all stripes, especially Catholic) have supported monarchic rule and, later, conservative political parties in Europe, the Americas, and -- in countries with a significant Christian population -- Africa and Asia.

Despite this, however, in many cases Jesus' teachings seem to be far from conservative. He (according to the Bible, the only record of his life [assuming he was a historical figure]) taught the importance of redistributing wealth to the poor, excoriated the rich and the religious authorities of his day, and spoke against the occupying Roman Empire and its tax collectors. Moreover, Jesus was socially liberal for his time. He never mentioned homosexuality, emphasized non-violence, spoke to women (against Jewish law at the time) and advised people to associate with those deemed "undesirable" (prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors, etc.). Plus, the early Christian church held all their possessions in common (once again, according to the dubious Biblical record), which is the very definition of communism.

So, what do you think: What are the political implications of Christian doctrine? Does Christianity imply conservatism? Leftism? No ideology at all? Why or why not?

[dianaiad]

The Bible is not evidence or argument. Simply quoting your holy book does nothing to illustrate the political implications of Christianity, it just restates a vague platitude that says nothing about practical politics.

With all due respect....and I mean, with all the respect the above is due, which isn't a whole lot...if the opponent 'quotes [the] holy book" as part of the question and as evidence for his point, then it is quite permissible to use the same source as evidence for a different point.

As in....would you care to explain, in words understandable yet, er, coherent, how one can argue a point made by the bible without quoting the bible?

Good grief.

[Divine Insight]

That Bible verse doesn't answer the question I raised in the OP. I get that Christians believe nations should follow the statutes of their god, my question was what following those statutes looks like politically?

The "Political Implications" of Christian doctrine is that it will create a nation blessed by the LORD.

Is that easier for you to follow?

Ps:33:12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

And where do you see an example of this in reality?

Other than quoting this from ancient rumors where is there any meat to it?

We can quote the rumors from Greek mythology too. But what would be the purpose of quoting them? Quoting ancient rumors doesn't make them true.

You keep quoting empty verses that have no counterparts in reality.

Moreover, you've quoted from the Old Testament. But the Jews themselves would quality as a nation whose God is the LORD of the Old Testament. The Jewish Pharisees even had Jesus crucified for blaspheme against their LORD thy God, just as their LORD thy God of the Old Testament had commanded that they should do.

So Israel should be the nation that is blessed by God. Does Israel appear to be blessed by God to you?

[dianaiad]

Social scientists and historians have long known that Christianity (defined as organized, church-based Protestantism, [Eastern] Orthodoxy, or Catholicism) has been associated -- at least since the Middle Ages -- with political conservatism. The traditional right in Europe was heavily invested in the church and Christian belief, and churches (of all stripes, especially Catholic) have supported monarchic rule and, later, conservative political parties in Europe, the Americas, and -- in countries with a significant Christian population -- Africa and Asia.

Despite this, however, in many cases Jesus' teachings seem to be far from conservative. He (according to the Bible, the only record of his life [assuming he was a historical figure]) taught the importance of redistributing wealth to the poor, excoriated the rich and the religious authorities of his day, and spoke against the occupying Roman Empire and its tax collectors. Moreover, Jesus was socially liberal for his time. He never mentioned homosexuality, emphasized non-violence, spoke to women (against Jewish law at the time) and advised people to associate with those deemed "undesirable" (prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors, etc.). Plus, the early Christian church held all their possessions in common (once again, according to the dubious Biblical record), which is the very definition of communism.

So, what do you think: What are the political implications of Christian doctrine? Does Christianity imply conservatism? Leftism? No ideology at all? Why or why not?

This is a question brought up frequently...and one that I answer thusly: According to the NT, Jesus is the epitome of conservative thought. Consider: all His teachings are aimed, not at GOVERNMENTS, but at individual people. The only thing He has to say about governments (as governments) is when He takes that coin and tells folks that one should 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and unto God the things that are God's." You know....separation of church and state in it's purest form?

So...why is that a conservative POV?

Because Conservatives feel that we should do as Jesus taught: feed the poor, behave ourselves, take care of each other....and not leave it up to the government. His disdain for the authorities was rather clear; He called them hypocrites because they did not do, personally, what their religious laws told them to do. He didn't call for higher taxes; He told the rich guy to give his money away...HIMSELF. He didn't call for a formation of an IRS to take it away and give it to others.

Now I am talking only about the teachings the NT attributes to Jesus, here....but tell me; is there a single one that applies to a government doing things for or to others? Or are they all aimed at the individuals listening to Him at the time?

Not 'form a committee to remove that man's coat and give it to someone else," but
Give him YOURS.

Not "go get their money," but "give the poor YOURS."

Not "make sure that the selfish people hand over their stuff and do right,' but YOU do right.

Conservative.

Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God's...and then Jesus went around telling everybody what GOD wanted.

Definitely not a liberal idea.

[kayky]

I really don't think the politics of first century Palestine can be compared to the politics of twenty-first century America. Having said that, I definitely think Jesus would be a liberal. He always sided with the poor and outcast and had little good to say about the rich. I think he would confront many conservatives today in the same way he did the Pharasees of his day. If we look at the few descriptions we have of the first century church, we find these Christians selling all their possessions and sharing everything in common with the church. This is the church which most
closely reflects the teachings of Jesus. Many of them knew Jesus personally.

[YahDough]

That Bible verse doesn't answer the question I raised in the OP. I get that Christians believe nations should follow the statutes of their god, my question was what following those statutes looks like politically?

The "Political Implications" of Christian doctrine is that it will create a nation blessed by the LORD.

Is that easier for you to follow?

Ps:33:12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

And where do you see an example of this in reality?

The US until recently. Now it seems to be slipping away.

So Israel should be the nation that is blessed by God. Does Israel appear to be blessed by God to you?

Yes. The New Testament message for Israel looks good.

Romans 11:25-36

25: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26: And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30: For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34: For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35: Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36: For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.