Thank you! I admire everyone for signing this statement. I wish Synod would make no decision.
Pushing ahead with the Human Sexuality Report will not end well. What is the hurry? It took 300 years of conversation for the church to reach consensus on the Trinity. To this day, the church discusses whether God chooses you, or whether you choose God. It is such a central question, yet there is no human answer, the Bible holds both views. Much about God is not open to human comprehension. It took 200 years of conversation before the church found consensus that modern slavery is not in accord with God’s will. Then a hundred years of conversation about divorce and re-marriage, and the place and role of women in modern society.
The church, throughout its history, discerns its calling through conversation. Yes, conversation, reading the Bible together, observing the historical unfolding of the creation and listening to the Spirit, given to help us find truth. The Spirit did not stop working on Pentecost day. Long as time remains, the Kingdom keeps permeating people and cultures. But each time we opt out of the conversation, every time we assert that now we know God’s will and this is how it is, the Spirit is quenched, there is no growth in Christ and the church splits.
Synod 2022, please do not stop the conversation.
In our local congregation, Ladner CRC in British Columbia, the council endorsed the Report without consulting the congregation as is required by Article 37 of the Church Order. How many other local councils decided before engaging the congregation? In addition, there is widespread misunderstanding about the practical implications of giving this Report confessional status. Should we not know what it means before accepting it?
It is fitting to be humble about our ability to capture the will of God in theological statements and in a code of conduct. God judges the heart, not outward behaviour. The church, under the leading of the Spirit, is on a journey, reforming as it goes. The denomination should invite the membership to join that journey, to contribute to the conversation, not to stop it.
In the CRC, congregations send delegates to larger assemblies, we do not send representatives. Delegates are not instructed how to vote. They are expected to listen to and participate in the discussion. CRC assemblies are deliberative. We trust that deliberation in a larger body will more nearly reflect God's will than every single local unit acting alone. That is how the body is build. The church is not a political body, particularly not to be modeled on US political structures which are largely devoid of deliberation. The result is a endless power struggle. Pray the church will be kept from going that route.
If delegates to larger assemblies are expected to be representatives, unable to deliberate and vote according to what they hear at teh assembly, then why have assemblies at all? They could all stay home and simply register their pre-arranged vote. If we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, we should insist that every delegate to Synod will go there with an open mind.
There is much confusion, also out on the street, about the concept of representation. It interesting that the denomination has a Council of Delegates, not a House of Representatives.
In recent years I hear much murmuring about 'those in authority' not listening to 'we the people'. Talk such as 'they are on our payroll, they are accountable to us', particularly as it relates to ecclesiastical staff at various levels. Such views come from the corporate world, not from a Christian understanding of the place of institutions.
I write in support of Overture #6. Having read John Span’s questions and following comments, I’ll make three points.
First, in past great discussions about the church’s role related to social injustices some Christians also suggested that the issue is complex, that there is good and bad on both sides, that the church is not competent to pronounce on political issues and should stick to its spiritual mandate. We find such arguments during the abolition debates of the 19th century, Apartheid, Nazism, world war II, the civil rights movement and Vietnam. And, again today. History teaches that those voices proved to be wrong.
Second, that Overture #6 was twice rejected at the classical level and kept alive by a single passionate individual speaks neither for nor against its truth. Is it a vice to be passionate, or to be a single voice? Synod 2018 adopted Bev Sterk’s overture on abuse of power in spite of its rejection at every prior step. Again, history teaches that single, committed outliers can be beacons of righteousness. Thomas Moore comes to mind.
Third, that Israel treats its Palestinian neighbours unlawfully and with great injustice is well-documented and beyond dispute. That Jesus calls his followers to resist evil and support righteousness is also beyond dispute. Overture #6 is prudent, it stays within the ecclesiastical task and calling by restricting itself to the church’s prophetic task. It does not call for or endorse any particular, concrete political position. It calls for justice, for righteousness in the Middle-east conflict and for the denomination to educate its members. If we may not do that, what are we church for?
John regarding your summary: that there is propaganda on one side is true, but sadly it is equally true on the other side.
To clarify, I stated that the arguments made today for why the denomination should not speak out are exactly the same as those made in earlier instances of grave injustices, such as, among others, Apartheid, Nazism and World War II. I did not say that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is on the same scale and order as Apartheid and the Holocaust.
Also this, speculating about people's motives (guilt, seeking the glory of a social warrior) is not helpful.
Thank you Jason. You ask what I hope will be accomplished. I hope the Synod will support Overture #6 and following that the denomination will equip its members to serve and honor God in our office as citizens.
It is my experience that the politics of CRC members is shaped more by partisan positions than Bible principles. Our members have a great aversion to exploring God’s will for public policies within the context of church. When was the last time you heard a CRC sermon expound God’s will for anything political? During the last national elections in the USA and in Canada, The Banner, unlike Christianity Today, carried no discussion on how Christians should vote. The message: God is not interested in how you vote! It is a limitation on the Lordship of Jesus. Jesus is Lord of life. Politics is part of life. The church must speak to every part of life. But its message is always a church message, calling parents, teachers, business persons, politicians and citizens to their God-given responsibilities. The church does not start doing the work for them.
Telling members what party or candidate to vote for exceeds the church’s authority, not telling the members what values should inform their vote abdicates the church’s responsibility. Church Order 28 does not prohibit the denomination to speak about politics and social issues. It reminds us that the church is not a political party. Drafting legislation is not the task of the church.
You are correct, there must also be individual initiative. Denominational work has to complement that of the members. Each of us is a citizen. Citizenship is a calling, an office. Citizenship is easy prey for idol worship, false gods. In our citizenship we are to love neighbour as self and God above all. No room for nationalism. The church exists to equip its members for service, also in citizenship. Overture #6 aims to do that.
There is a legitimate separation between church and state, but to separate religion from politics is impossible. Exploring God’s claim on life is a spiritual quest, entirely appropriate for the denomination to address. Unless the denomination equips its laity for citizenship that honours God, our members will be fed by Fox News or the New York Times. The one is no more informed by Bible principles than the other. We need to make the Bible great again.
Thank you, John. I agree, improper motives can taint any discussion, position and behavior. Such motives might be held consciously or unconsciously. All humans are wonderfully endowed but also deeply fallen. I cannot even truly know the hidden motives of my own heart, let alone my neighbours'.
In any discussion, attributing motives to opponents is mostly a losing strategy. You might be mistaken, it drives people apart because the other side will recent it, both sides can play that game and will and what about the purity of your own motives? Hence, attributing motives is mostly unhelpful. It also takes the focus away from the essence of the argument. The argument shifts and then deteriorates to who has greater faith, God is on my side, not your side, I submit to scripture, you don't and finally, I have brains, you don't.
I have some experience as an elected representative both at the local and provincial level (I'm in Canada) In politics there is plenty questioning people's motives. If you can't win the argument on its merits attributing motives is the smart thing to do. And yet, sadly, from my experience there is as much of that going on among Christians as there is in politics. For example, during a discussion at a congregational meeting someone will rise and start with, "I've been in much prayer about this, for weeks now, but this week it became clear to me, God showed me we should do ..." What an effective trick, who can top that and how pious? The implication is that opponents are not motivated to do God's will as you are. The accusation is no less lethal for being implied, whereas in politics it is more likely to be baldly asserted.
We may have our doubts about people's motives but we must suppress such doubts and assume, genuinely, that our opponents are well-intentioned, authentically sincere and love God as much as we do ourselves. It is a very tall order, particularly for Christians. Paul says consider others more worthy than yourself. It is a test I myself fail, often.
Jason: Thank you for interacting, truly appreciated.
Of course it is difficult for Christians to discuss political issues, particularly, today. But it is not impossible. For example, the Winter 2019 edition of Calvin Seminary's Forum is all about immigration. The leading article is by Amenda Benkhuysen. I think it is excellent. She does not mention politics, policies or political parties but examines Bible teachings related to immigrants. She speaks confessionally about an intensely politically charged issue. But one would have to be spiritually frozen to not see the implications for how we as citizens talk about and promote our views on the immigration question. She does not draw out those implications. That is our responsibility as Christian citizens. Christians should aim to speak confessionally first and then from that draw conclusions about public policies and laws. If we don't, we will swallow Fox News and the New York Times. If we think confessionally we would, it seems to me reject both Fox News and the New York times because both are grounded in classical liberalism which places the individual as supreme.
To place Sojourners or Focus on the Family into political categories is unhelpful, because then we no longer see them as Christians, fellow Christ confessors and we don't need to listen to them, they can be dismissed by their political categories. It behooves all of us to talk confesionally long before we talk actual policies. The Forum article does that. It is a fine example how the church (Christians) can and should address political issues. It also answers those who think Church Order 28 prohibits talk about political concerns.
Overture #6 speaks to a political topic but not in the language of politics, rather its language is the language of the church. It uses confessional language. It attempts to discern God’s will as it applies to a particular instance of oppression and suffering. The Overture’s ‘thus says the Lord’ is directed primarily at Israel because Israel has the most power, it is the occupying force and its laws are applied arbitrarily, unequally. Palestine is enjoined to not resort to violence.
Is that not what the prophets did? They inserted themselves into concrete situations, pointed their finger at a person or persons and said, You have done evil in the sight of God! No weasel words. Jesus placed himself in the tradition of the prophets. Should we not do so as well?
Some claim that the church should stay out of politics. Is a political topic out of bounds even when the church speaks confessionally? For example, immigration is intensely political, must the church not say anything about immigration because it is a political topic? Thirty–six times the OT commands love and justice for foreigners, because, once you were a foreigner, but NT Christians should not seek to discern God’s will for refugees knocking at our gates? How can that be?
To others, Overture #6 misunderstands God’s will, or it is one-sided, or its promoters might be motivated wrongly, or it smells of Liberation Theology. All of those and more might be true, if so, the appropriate response is to offer improvements, but none are offered. What is urged is rejection. But the suffering, the oppression does not stop.
Josh, I do not think there is any limit to what the church (local council, classis, synod) can speak to, because Jesus is Lord of all of life. The church differs from other social structures and organizations in that it speaks confessionally. It must interpret God's will for life, its pronouncements should be grounded in Bible teachings. The church is not limited by topic but by its message. Would those who object to Overture #6 on the basis that the church should not speak to political topics not want the church to say anything about abortion, same-sex relationships or medically assisted suicide? Are those not political?
During my time in politics and government I quickly learned that some churches in my district expected me to speak in favour of pro-life, against same-sex relationships, casinos etc. while others wanted me to speak against uranium mining, nuclear arms, industrial pollution etc. It was striking to me that the first group did not want to hear about the second group's concerns and the second group was equally opposed the first's concerns. Yet, both read the same bible. It raises the troubling question whether we, and I include myself, allow our religion to determine our politics or do we allow our politics to shape our religion?
You ask what Overture #6 has to do with the Great Commission. Everything! Jesus says, 'Teach them to observe all I commanded.' What did Jesus command? Jesus commanded love by serving the best interests of our neigbour, looking after the needs of the orphan, the widow, all who are marginalized, oppressed and taken advantage of. It is a dauntingly long list.
Whether Christians embrace a cultural mandate or not depends on two very different understandings of the mission of Jesus. For the first 1100 years the church held a 'Christ as Victor' view of the atonement. (as does the Eastern church to this day) Then with St. Anslem the 'Jesus died for me' view became more prominent and the Reformers bought into it. The first sees the cross and the resurrection in cosmic terms. In Jesus God is reclaiming the creation and we get to help in that. The second sees Jesus' work in personal terms, because of Jesus I get to go to heaven. For example, in your question #4 you express the gospel's message strictly in personal terms.
So, which is the correct view? The Bible gives evidence for both views. Hence, to be faithful to the Bible we should not choose between, but honour both positions. Sadly, North American evangelicalism is largely about getting people into heaven and one-sidedly so. If that is all the church is concerned about then political matters don't rate. When Jesus in Luke 4 states his manifesto quoting Isaiah 61 he speaks about liberating the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned, the blind. The Lord's Prayer is all about doing God's will on earth. How can politics, statecraft and social policies be excluded, except if you belief that Jesus is exclusively about getting souls into heaven.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Thank you! I admire everyone for signing this statement. I wish Synod would make no decision.
Pushing ahead with the Human Sexuality Report will not end well. What is the hurry? It took 300 years of conversation for the church to reach consensus on the Trinity. To this day, the church discusses whether God chooses you, or whether you choose God. It is such a central question, yet there is no human answer, the Bible holds both views. Much about God is not open to human comprehension. It took 200 years of conversation before the church found consensus that modern slavery is not in accord with God’s will. Then a hundred years of conversation about divorce and re-marriage, and the place and role of women in modern society.
The church, throughout its history, discerns its calling through conversation. Yes, conversation, reading the Bible together, observing the historical unfolding of the creation and listening to the Spirit, given to help us find truth. The Spirit did not stop working on Pentecost day. Long as time remains, the Kingdom keeps permeating people and cultures. But each time we opt out of the conversation, every time we assert that now we know God’s will and this is how it is, the Spirit is quenched, there is no growth in Christ and the church splits.
Synod 2022, please do not stop the conversation.
In our local congregation, Ladner CRC in British Columbia, the council endorsed the Report without consulting the congregation as is required by Article 37 of the Church Order. How many other local councils decided before engaging the congregation? In addition, there is widespread misunderstanding about the practical implications of giving this Report confessional status. Should we not know what it means before accepting it?
It is fitting to be humble about our ability to capture the will of God in theological statements and in a code of conduct. God judges the heart, not outward behaviour. The church, under the leading of the Spirit, is on a journey, reforming as it goes. The denomination should invite the membership to join that journey, to contribute to the conversation, not to stop it.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
In the CRC, congregations send delegates to larger assemblies, we do not send representatives. Delegates are not instructed how to vote. They are expected to listen to and participate in the discussion. CRC assemblies are deliberative. We trust that deliberation in a larger body will more nearly reflect God's will than every single local unit acting alone. That is how the body is build. The church is not a political body, particularly not to be modeled on US political structures which are largely devoid of deliberation. The result is a endless power struggle. Pray the church will be kept from going that route.
If delegates to larger assemblies are expected to be representatives, unable to deliberate and vote according to what they hear at teh assembly, then why have assemblies at all? They could all stay home and simply register their pre-arranged vote. If we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, we should insist that every delegate to Synod will go there with an open mind.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Thank you, Dan. That is very sad. Words have meaning. The Church Order uses the wrong word.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Thank you Galen,
There is much confusion, also out on the street, about the concept of representation. It interesting that the denomination has a Council of Delegates, not a House of Representatives.
In recent years I hear much murmuring about 'those in authority' not listening to 'we the people'. Talk such as 'they are on our payroll, they are accountable to us', particularly as it relates to ecclesiastical staff at various levels. Such views come from the corporate world, not from a Christian understanding of the place of institutions.
Nick
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
I write in support of Overture #6. Having read John Span’s questions and following comments, I’ll make three points.
First, in past great discussions about the church’s role related to social injustices some Christians also suggested that the issue is complex, that there is good and bad on both sides, that the church is not competent to pronounce on political issues and should stick to its spiritual mandate. We find such arguments during the abolition debates of the 19th century, Apartheid, Nazism, world war II, the civil rights movement and Vietnam. And, again today. History teaches that those voices proved to be wrong.
Second, that Overture #6 was twice rejected at the classical level and kept alive by a single passionate individual speaks neither for nor against its truth. Is it a vice to be passionate, or to be a single voice? Synod 2018 adopted Bev Sterk’s overture on abuse of power in spite of its rejection at every prior step. Again, history teaches that single, committed outliers can be beacons of righteousness. Thomas Moore comes to mind.
Third, that Israel treats its Palestinian neighbours unlawfully and with great injustice is well-documented and beyond dispute. That Jesus calls his followers to resist evil and support righteousness is also beyond dispute. Overture #6 is prudent, it stays within the ecclesiastical task and calling by restricting itself to the church’s prophetic task. It does not call for or endorse any particular, concrete political position. It calls for justice, for righteousness in the Middle-east conflict and for the denomination to educate its members. If we may not do that, what are we church for?
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
John regarding your summary: that there is propaganda on one side is true, but sadly it is equally true on the other side.
To clarify, I stated that the arguments made today for why the denomination should not speak out are exactly the same as those made in earlier instances of grave injustices, such as, among others, Apartheid, Nazism and World War II. I did not say that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is on the same scale and order as Apartheid and the Holocaust.
Also this, speculating about people's motives (guilt, seeking the glory of a social warrior) is not helpful.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Thank you Jason. You ask what I hope will be accomplished. I hope the Synod will support Overture #6 and following that the denomination will equip its members to serve and honor God in our office as citizens.
It is my experience that the politics of CRC members is shaped more by partisan positions than Bible principles. Our members have a great aversion to exploring God’s will for public policies within the context of church. When was the last time you heard a CRC sermon expound God’s will for anything political? During the last national elections in the USA and in Canada, The Banner, unlike Christianity Today, carried no discussion on how Christians should vote. The message: God is not interested in how you vote! It is a limitation on the Lordship of Jesus. Jesus is Lord of life. Politics is part of life. The church must speak to every part of life. But its message is always a church message, calling parents, teachers, business persons, politicians and citizens to their God-given responsibilities. The church does not start doing the work for them.
Telling members what party or candidate to vote for exceeds the church’s authority, not telling the members what values should inform their vote abdicates the church’s responsibility. Church Order 28 does not prohibit the denomination to speak about politics and social issues. It reminds us that the church is not a political party. Drafting legislation is not the task of the church.
You are correct, there must also be individual initiative. Denominational work has to complement that of the members. Each of us is a citizen. Citizenship is a calling, an office. Citizenship is easy prey for idol worship, false gods. In our citizenship we are to love neighbour as self and God above all. No room for nationalism. The church exists to equip its members for service, also in citizenship. Overture #6 aims to do that.
There is a legitimate separation between church and state, but to separate religion from politics is impossible. Exploring God’s claim on life is a spiritual quest, entirely appropriate for the denomination to address. Unless the denomination equips its laity for citizenship that honours God, our members will be fed by Fox News or the New York Times. The one is no more informed by Bible principles than the other. We need to make the Bible great again.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Thank you, John. I agree, improper motives can taint any discussion, position and behavior. Such motives might be held consciously or unconsciously. All humans are wonderfully endowed but also deeply fallen. I cannot even truly know the hidden motives of my own heart, let alone my neighbours'.
In any discussion, attributing motives to opponents is mostly a losing strategy. You might be mistaken, it drives people apart because the other side will recent it, both sides can play that game and will and what about the purity of your own motives? Hence, attributing motives is mostly unhelpful. It also takes the focus away from the essence of the argument. The argument shifts and then deteriorates to who has greater faith, God is on my side, not your side, I submit to scripture, you don't and finally, I have brains, you don't.
I have some experience as an elected representative both at the local and provincial level (I'm in Canada) In politics there is plenty questioning people's motives. If you can't win the argument on its merits attributing motives is the smart thing to do. And yet, sadly, from my experience there is as much of that going on among Christians as there is in politics. For example, during a discussion at a congregational meeting someone will rise and start with, "I've been in much prayer about this, for weeks now, but this week it became clear to me, God showed me we should do ..." What an effective trick, who can top that and how pious? The implication is that opponents are not motivated to do God's will as you are. The accusation is no less lethal for being implied, whereas in politics it is more likely to be baldly asserted.
We may have our doubts about people's motives but we must suppress such doubts and assume, genuinely, that our opponents are well-intentioned, authentically sincere and love God as much as we do ourselves. It is a very tall order, particularly for Christians. Paul says consider others more worthy than yourself. It is a test I myself fail, often.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Jason: Thank you for interacting, truly appreciated.
Of course it is difficult for Christians to discuss political issues, particularly, today. But it is not impossible. For example, the Winter 2019 edition of Calvin Seminary's Forum is all about immigration. The leading article is by Amenda Benkhuysen. I think it is excellent. She does not mention politics, policies or political parties but examines Bible teachings related to immigrants. She speaks confessionally about an intensely politically charged issue. But one would have to be spiritually frozen to not see the implications for how we as citizens talk about and promote our views on the immigration question. She does not draw out those implications. That is our responsibility as Christian citizens. Christians should aim to speak confessionally first and then from that draw conclusions about public policies and laws. If we don't, we will swallow Fox News and the New York Times. If we think confessionally we would, it seems to me reject both Fox News and the New York times because both are grounded in classical liberalism which places the individual as supreme.
To place Sojourners or Focus on the Family into political categories is unhelpful, because then we no longer see them as Christians, fellow Christ confessors and we don't need to listen to them, they can be dismissed by their political categories. It behooves all of us to talk confesionally long before we talk actual policies. The Forum article does that. It is a fine example how the church (Christians) can and should address political issues. It also answers those who think Church Order 28 prohibits talk about political concerns.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Craig, Thank you!
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Overture #6 speaks to a political topic but not in the language of politics, rather its language is the language of the church. It uses confessional language. It attempts to discern God’s will as it applies to a particular instance of oppression and suffering. The Overture’s ‘thus says the Lord’ is directed primarily at Israel because Israel has the most power, it is the occupying force and its laws are applied arbitrarily, unequally. Palestine is enjoined to not resort to violence.
Is that not what the prophets did? They inserted themselves into concrete situations, pointed their finger at a person or persons and said, You have done evil in the sight of God! No weasel words. Jesus placed himself in the tradition of the prophets. Should we not do so as well?
Some claim that the church should stay out of politics. Is a political topic out of bounds even when the church speaks confessionally? For example, immigration is intensely political, must the church not say anything about immigration because it is a political topic? Thirty–six times the OT commands love and justice for foreigners, because, once you were a foreigner, but NT Christians should not seek to discern God’s will for refugees knocking at our gates? How can that be?
To others, Overture #6 misunderstands God’s will, or it is one-sided, or its promoters might be motivated wrongly, or it smells of Liberation Theology. All of those and more might be true, if so, the appropriate response is to offer improvements, but none are offered. What is urged is rejection. But the suffering, the oppression does not stop.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Josh, I do not think there is any limit to what the church (local council, classis, synod) can speak to, because Jesus is Lord of all of life. The church differs from other social structures and organizations in that it speaks confessionally. It must interpret God's will for life, its pronouncements should be grounded in Bible teachings. The church is not limited by topic but by its message. Would those who object to Overture #6 on the basis that the church should not speak to political topics not want the church to say anything about abortion, same-sex relationships or medically assisted suicide? Are those not political?
During my time in politics and government I quickly learned that some churches in my district expected me to speak in favour of pro-life, against same-sex relationships, casinos etc. while others wanted me to speak against uranium mining, nuclear arms, industrial pollution etc. It was striking to me that the first group did not want to hear about the second group's concerns and the second group was equally opposed the first's concerns. Yet, both read the same bible. It raises the troubling question whether we, and I include myself, allow our religion to determine our politics or do we allow our politics to shape our religion?
You ask what Overture #6 has to do with the Great Commission. Everything! Jesus says, 'Teach them to observe all I commanded.' What did Jesus command? Jesus commanded love by serving the best interests of our neigbour, looking after the needs of the orphan, the widow, all who are marginalized, oppressed and taken advantage of. It is a dauntingly long list.
Whether Christians embrace a cultural mandate or not depends on two very different understandings of the mission of Jesus. For the first 1100 years the church held a 'Christ as Victor' view of the atonement. (as does the Eastern church to this day) Then with St. Anslem the 'Jesus died for me' view became more prominent and the Reformers bought into it. The first sees the cross and the resurrection in cosmic terms. In Jesus God is reclaiming the creation and we get to help in that. The second sees Jesus' work in personal terms, because of Jesus I get to go to heaven. For example, in your question #4 you express the gospel's message strictly in personal terms.
So, which is the correct view? The Bible gives evidence for both views. Hence, to be faithful to the Bible we should not choose between, but honour both positions. Sadly, North American evangelicalism is largely about getting people into heaven and one-sidedly so. If that is all the church is concerned about then political matters don't rate. When Jesus in Luke 4 states his manifesto quoting Isaiah 61 he speaks about liberating the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned, the blind. The Lord's Prayer is all about doing God's will on earth. How can politics, statecraft and social policies be excluded, except if you belief that Jesus is exclusively about getting souls into heaven.