Comments on: A Christian nation’s foreign policy http://godnix.wordpress.com/2004/10/03/another-rant-on-church-state/ Where everything comes together Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:01:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Tony Cooper http://godnix.wordpress.com/2004/10/03/another-rant-on-church-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1295 Tony Cooper Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:15:40 +0000 https://godnix.wordpress.com/2004/10/03/another-rant-on-church-state/#comment-1295 You raise some very good points here. I do not think any nation has been or every will be 'Christian'. Christ transforms on an individual level. When enough individuals become His disciples, the path of a nation can be directed and influenced (this can and has happened in the past). But because we live in a fallen world system upon which has based its values in direct opposition to all that God is, a devil who is direct spiritual conflict against us and God, we will never see any nation become 'Christian'. This is no excuse for inaction or indifference on our part, however. We must use every opportunity to reach those in positions of authority. The label 'Christian' first was referred to in Antioch (Acts 11:26). The world loves labels and gets confused and annoyed when it cannot categorise or put us in a box. As the word Christian has become so devalued, by its misuse, I think that we are perhaps best described as followers or disciples of Jesus. It implies both an ongoing action and receiving from Him as the source. I often pondered how any nation can become totally 'christian'. C.S. Lewis discusses it in his book 'Mere Christianity'. I think we will see a true reflection of this in Heaven. You raise some very good points here. I do not think any nation has been or every will be ‘Christian’. Christ transforms on an individual level. When enough individuals become His disciples, the path of a nation can be directed and influenced (this can and has happened in the past). But because we live in a fallen world system upon which has based its values in direct opposition to all that God is, a devil who is direct spiritual conflict against us and God, we will never see any nation become ‘Christian’.

This is no excuse for inaction or indifference on our part, however. We must use every opportunity to reach those in positions of authority.

The label ‘Christian’ first was referred to in Antioch (Acts 11:26). The world loves labels and gets confused and annoyed when it cannot categorise or put us in a box. As the word Christian has become so devalued, by its misuse, I think that we are perhaps best described as followers or disciples of Jesus. It implies both an ongoing action and receiving from Him as the source.

I often pondered how any nation can become totally ‘christian’. C.S. Lewis discusses it in his book ‘Mere Christianity’. I think we will see a true reflection of this in Heaven.

]]> By: Love your Enemy: How to Really Win the War on Terror « The Search For Integrity http://godnix.wordpress.com/2004/10/03/another-rant-on-church-state/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Love your Enemy: How to Really Win the War on Terror « The Search For Integrity Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:56:33 +0000 https://godnix.wordpress.com/2004/10/03/another-rant-on-church-state/#comment-122 [...] What would foreign policy look like if it was modeled on these Christian teachings? Can any nation call itself Christian which rejects these as not applicable, irrelevant, hopelessly idealistic, or naïve? How can any national leader admire a philosopher who comes up with this kind of wisdom? What would happen if that philosopher’s teaching on this specific way of dealing with conflict was actually believed enough to be applied (not just “admired”) in matters of policy? [...] [...] What would foreign policy look like if it was modeled on these Christian teachings? Can any nation call itself Christian which rejects these as not applicable, irrelevant, hopelessly idealistic, or naïve? How can any national leader admire a philosopher who comes up with this kind of wisdom? What would happen if that philosopher’s teaching on this specific way of dealing with conflict was actually believed enough to be applied (not just “admired”) in matters of policy? [...]

]]>