There are a few points I would like to take up. The first is the constant demonizing of the church that we get in this comments section. One would have thought that after the bloodiest century ever, our ire should be directed towards secularization that brought us communism and the purges, cultural revolution, gulags, millions starved in Russia, the holocaust, two world wars, Cambodia and the killing fields, not to mention environmental degradation and the dumbing down of Western culture in the name of the bottom line. All these things, may I remind you, were carried out in the name of some ideology or other that was and is opposed by the church. The evidence is mounting that secularization that is cut free from the church is a monster. In the face of this evidence I do not understand the hysterical and irrational attacks on the church.

Secondly, I wish you would read me more closely. The foisting of so called creation science into the school curriculum in the US is exactly a case of the sacred moving out of its realm into the secular to the damage of us all. I am really a bit sick of being portrayed as some kind of Christian fundamentalist warrior in spite of my material. If the comments section of Online Opinion are to carry any weight then we must read more closely before we give our usual knee jerk anti religious response. I expect comments to cost as much to their contributors that the articles cost me in depth of thought and research.

Well said Peter... 'amen' :)
I applaud your point about the juxtaposition of the king and the prophet. That is really what the 'Political Christian' should be aiming at. The prophetic call back to righteousness of the government.

I wish to also speak a bit of truth in love to those who seem to be suddently spun out into a mental twilight zone with little spirals whirling around in their eyes as soon as the word "God" is mentioned .. specially so if the word "Christian" is associated with it. The blindness which only ever sees the 'ugly' side of the Church is also apparently blind to the vastly greater 'sins' of humanity perpetrated in the name of secularism (communism in particular) as you listed in your response.
I was reading an article referred to me by a commenter about 'cosmology' purely secular, where one scientist is 'out of order' by claiming the Big Bang didn't happen, and was confronted by a conspiracy of collusive stone walling by the 'objective' scientific establishment which had a mountain of research and grants and personal effort to defend by saying it DID happen.
C'mon u guys let GO of your pet hates about the Church, and look at what Peter has actually WRITTEN as he bemoans.

Some have tweaked to the truth of the fact that Jesus taught some wonderful things, and even though they might not agree with our understanding of His death and resurrection, recognizing that what He taught as being noble should immediately ring the 'go figure' bell when u see different stuff happening in some elements of 'The Church'

Peter,
well written. As someone who is concerned about the potential impact of groups like "Family First" it is refreshing to see someone from within the church stepping outside the labels of "christian" and thinking about the issues.

The church and it's people have a valid role in our communities (just as other groups such as the environmental lobby do). The bit that concerns me is the numbers that can be brought to bear in support of a propisition because of the label "christian" rather than because of the validity of the proposition. I know that problem applies to almost any interest group, I do suspect that other groups tend to attract smaller groups of people who are more focussed on the political ambitions of the group.

Thanks for writing, keep up the good work, try not to be to distressed by those who misread what you say (probably including myself).

Peter, you carp about folk who don't invest the same energy in research that you claim to, but I notice that you are pretty happy to indulge in a few dodgy generalizations of your own.

Your claim that "the church" opposed all those nasty regimes sounds good, but you have to dig pretty deep to find any seriously anti-Nazi proclamations from Pius XII, to give just one example. Simply pontificating (sorry) about peace, as Benedict XV did during the World War I, merely puts religion in the same boat as pacifism, which is a nice and warm place for the righteous to sit.

But perhaps I misunderstood, and World War I was "carried out in the name of some ideology or other that was and is opposed by the church." Which ideology did you have in mind?

But I'm afraid you lost me completely with your wild, outlandish and wholly unsupported claim that "the whole structure of Western culture [is] built on an egalitarianism that only Christianity was able to produce."

This may well be your belief, and that is a very fine and fair thing. But you then draw upon it to justify an even wilder and more outlandish position.

"...honesty in public work and service, a legal system that is not just founded on vengeance, protection of the marital bond and the care of the disadvantaged in society and we have a very sound argument for the positive outcomes of Christian society. But, we are told, all of this must be abandoned to some other way of deciding our fate which turns out to be the simplest pragmatism. We are invited to abandon the riches of a tradition that has brought us thus far to opt for a severely reduced view of the world."

Who is telling you this? Why is it axiomatic that pragmatism requires us to embrace (for example) a legal system founded on vengeance?

Such arrogance of argument, and from someone who complains about the forum's tendency to "knee-jerk".

Peter, I obviously didn't express myself well. My point was of the problems that can occur when the Church moves into a powerful role within government. My example of creation teaching was used to illustrate that point. With all the good teachings contained within the Christian religion, it's dogma such as this that is pressed by the Christian lobby.

The excesses of secular government do not justify, lessen or negate the excesses of Christian power. The history of the Christian Church (as opposed to Christianity or Christian people)has not been a pretty one. It's a history of intolerance, cruelty, greed and lust for power. The history of the Christian spirit within individuals is much different, as evidenced by people such as Mother Teresa, incredible charity work performed by individual parishes and people, down to the person whose Christian beliefs help them in loving their neighbour and "being a good person". These are the qualities that should be the face of the Church.

Walk down any street and ask people the question, "Would you be comfortable with the Church having power within government?" I can guarantee that the majority of people would answer in the negative. I would suggest that secular impressions of the Church centre around stern, humourless autocrats detailing "Thou shalt nots'" and the punishment to expect if thou shalt. It's up to the Church to take action to change these perceptions. The Evangelicals have gone a small way towards this, as is shown by their growth. The problem they face in my opinion is the current of fanatical fundamentalism that flows not far below the surface.

For the mainstream Churches to regain any lost relevance they need to make themselves spiritually attractive again. They need to effectively put the teachings of Jesus into a practical, modern perspective. People have to be able to trust the Church before they'll listen to it. The Church has to stop bashing the Bible and start giving the message.

So basically Peter I'm just echoing what you're saying, albeit from a different perspective.

Holdenute you need to read the bible again mate, democracy and the rights of the individual are not founded upon Christian principles. The bible says slavery is okay (exodus 21:21 is a good read) and that is just one point. Sure there are some people who "reinterpreted" the bible into whatever it is they want but if you actually read it rather then interpreted it it’s a pretty evil little book on the whole. I’ll give you a hint the Greeks and a few other cultures were mucking about with various of version of it well before some used cart salesman’s got delusion of grandeur.
AS for Sells comments get real secularization did not lead to the bloodiest century ever. Two things caused your so called bloodiest century ever 1) Mans inhumanity to man which has been going on since we got opposable thumbs. 2) Mans new and improve weapons of war. We now have the ability to kill each other in large numbers. Just think what the thirty years war would have been like if they had twentieth century weapons?