OK. Let’s look at Asher’s post(s) here. Asher wants to say that we have a final say as to resources. As far as I’m concerned having final say essentially entails “our say so”  our deliberation and decision making. Two statements he made.

Asher says: “Yes, I may consult God and He may say to me that He wants me to give (or surrender stewardship, whatever...see how convoluted even the simplest of words "give" becomes if we say "Away with ownership" ) any of those items to someone else...or He may give me no clear idea whatsoever about those items...someone else may come to me and say "I believe God wants you to give/surrender stewardship of that item to me/some other person/some cause." And some other person says, "No, I believe God wants you to give/surrender stewardship to me/some different other person/some different cause"

And

“Tom, please move from where you currently are, I want to be in that exact space. No, don't move there, I want to be there in a few seconds at my whim, so vacate that space so I can occupy it. No..not that space either. Or that one. Or that one.”

Now this, to me (especially the second quote), is where some of his liberalism is kicking in. I as the individual want to occupy the same space that you have. And when I do this I do this at my whim.

But that can’t happen with responsibility because at that point injustice would occur. You can’t just say to someone who is a plumber (and if you want to use your Parable of the Talents be my guest, because that is just as much a talent that God gives you), “Oh, I don’t want you in that position/space/calling because I want it.” You have children. You can’t say, “Oh, you can’t be the parent I’m gonna take over.” Not because merely in both cases someone is “stealing” (your right) but because it is your responsibility. I mean, I think Asher’s right. Libertarians, modernists, have excellent answers to these things but I think all of us on these boards realize that ultimately they are not solidly grounded.

Now Tommy wants to say, that its all gonna be brotherly love (Piiii-eace man) in which we will “all owning (i.e., “belonging to”) each other and being owned by each other. Every “other” will share in constituting every “self” and every “self” will be in every “other.” This oneness exists NOW by virtue of the omnipresent Spirit in which all our personal identities hold together, but it will one day be the only context in which we shall forever explore the beauties of divinity within created persons.”

But think of this in the context of family RIGHT NOW. As much as I’m for what Tyler said so many years ago about the family being relative to the Kingdom and as much as I am for what Grenz talked about in Christianity Today back in the 80’s as not being front and center in God’s grand scheme of things, regardless, the family is still vitally important to healthy child development.

(Minor tangent to make a greater point) Child development begins for the newborn in the all-embracing social context of the family and then, in our kind of society, gradually widens out to the differentiated world of institutions and relationships that the child experiences as he or she matures. Now, this doesn’t mean that children don’t grow up in broken homes or without adequate parenting. Nor does this ignore the fact that families are themselves differentiated institutions in a diversified society that shapes them and their child-rearing practices. The point is, is that the newborn BEGINS only with the family (or part of a family or a family substitute (like Axel Rose being raised by wolves. God knows he wasn’t raised by Ozzie and Harriet!). Then there is the significance of the birth event as a differentiating movement from womb to the larger open “nest” of the home. But that birth experience, even in cases where there is high tech medical assistance--is a newborn’s experience **WITH** his or her mother, and (one hopes) with the encouragement and involvement of the father, siblings and extended family. Now, a newborn enters the world and begins to mature from within an all-embracing, undifferentiated, and intimate social setting--mother, child and immediate family. Every bodily function and every experience inside and eventually outside the home, is experienced by the infant through the mediation of the family.

Now, let me ask you. How does what Tommy say fit into this? Just because, “all owning (i.e., “belonging to”) each other and being owned by each other” or “Every “other” will share in constituting every “self” and every “self” will be in every “other” does that mean that when we seek overcome racism and other forms of civic injustice or alienation that we should speak of the need to reach out to all of our “brothers and sisters?” Are they REALLY my brother and sister in the same sense that infant above is my child? I don’t have the same responsibility to them as I do to my own flesh and blood. The local church I go to is a “family” to me but not in the same sense that my children are and my priority is to care for them first because in large part it is what? My responsibility. I mean think of it. Should I have a kid and then hand them over to the church to raise them and thereby shirk my parental responsibility? Just like that? I’m still very much a steward of my children! But that’s the thing. God doesn’t want me to shirk my responsibility. Nobody or better, not just anybody can “occupy” THAT “space.”

Now you can talk about stewardship in terms of property or resources but responsibility would still be the same I’d think. I’m a plumber. I should take care of my tools (which means my final say so). Why? Because I have a responsibility. I’m a cop. I have a tool. A gun. I need to take care of that tool. Why? Because along with my calling/responsibility given to me by God to be a cop, I have all the responsibilities with what that entails.

Am I making sense here? Responsibility entails deliberating and decision making (Asher’s I want to hear Paul speak and Tom wants to hear John speak at the same time). This is a given. But as far as your talents are concerned, no one or not just anyone can occupy that space. Sorry. That was reserved for you and you only by God.

I love it. “We (whose the we?) have to come up with basic rules for civil order…” which essentially entails government and governing. Anyhoo…

Yes. There is such a thing as stealing. There is also such a thing as kidnapping. I’m saying that stewardship entails much more than simply owning property. It entails responsibility for all that is “given” to you. Children. Property. Talents. These resources and relationships flow from the kinds of people we **are.** The kinds of people we are called to be. The kinds of people we were CREATED to be. Its much more than simply possessing or the possession of property.

It doesn’t matter who or what it is. Someone or some institution simply can’t “occupy YOUR space” theologically speaking. That “space” is God given to you for your own flourishing and for the flourishing of the wider world (yes, you are suppose to be a blessing to others) and the Kingdom. Space is given for human flourishing. Recognizing who has the burden of proof is essentially what guys like Skillen and Co. talk about. Recognizing what something is in reality and differentiating between those realities (deliberation and decision making). The “tools” go along with the territory. It flows from the kinds of people we are. Even those who govern have responsibility and thus are “entitled” and need resources to carry out that responsibility.

Similitude:  “The State exists because people don’t fear God.”

When a person or institution takes over someone else’s “space” (entailing the resources and talents and relationships) this is when people not only don’t fear God but have put, whether by allowance or coercion of that entity, another God in place. No one has the “right” to “occupy” your God given space (responsibility). Who does your space come from? Whose your Daddy?     We need to remember who has called us. Who beckons us? (Its all about memory and remembering WHO God is).  Not the State! God forbid! But it tries! The State is not omnicompetent in a sphere sovereignty understanding of politics. Isn’t that interesting though. In this conversation it was referred to as “your space” but I and a whole tradition of the Church (Reformed) have referred to it as “sphere sovereignty.” Heh.

Similitude:  “In short, as a society becomes more solidified in incivility, it gets harder and harder to know how to adjudicate the most loving thing to do with respect to SOCIAL policy.”

Brandon:  The State has an adjudicating role. It’s not called to adjudicate the most loving thing to do. It is to adjudicate between the differing sphere’s of responsibility. Whatever social policy is decided upon should flow from that.  Tell me you see the difference. 

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/17/2010 10:20:07 AM (GMT-6)

Brandon: I love it. “We (whose the we?)

Jeff: Politicians, influenced in part by constituents/subjects and one another.

Brandon:  The State has an adjudicating role. It’s not called to adjudicate the most loving thing to do. It is to adjudicate between the differing sphere’s of responsibility. Whatever social policy is decided upon should flow from that.  Tell me you see the difference. 

Jeff: The State HAS duties of its own. It doesn't merely determine WHO ELSE has WHAT duties. Regardless, legislators, judges, and executives, like their constituents, disagree as to the boundaries of those sphere's of responsibility. You and I don't even agree on them. So how can we expect politicians to?

Just talking about the fact that there IS sphere sovereignty doesn't solve a thing.

Starting to go off on a tangent here...

Brandon: I love it. “We (whose the we?)

Jeff: Politicians, influenced in part by constituents/subjects and one another.

Brandon: Yes, I realize that. My point was that WE still need to govern ourselves. That’s all. Thus the importance of the institution we call government.

Brandon: The State has an adjudicating role. It’s not called to adjudicate the most loving thing to do. It is to adjudicate between the differing sphere’s of responsibility. Whatever social policy is decided upon should flow from that. Tell me you see the difference.

Jeff: The State HAS duties of its own. It doesn't merely determine WHO ELSE has WHAT duties. Regardless, legislators, judges, and executives, like their constituents, disagree as to the boundaries of those sphere's of responsibility. You and I don't even agree on them. So how can we expect politicians to? Just talking about the fact that there IS sphere sovereignty doesn't solve a thing.

Brandon: Jeff, I’ve always maintained that government has a role and “civil” society has a role. What government does is recognize the reality of what something is. It doesn’t arbitrarily decide what something is. As humans given responsibility by God we deliberate and make decisions about what something is and then we deliberate and make decisions as to how it can flourish and carry out its responsibility. We do this by recognizing what the responsibilities of the other spheres of civil society are and what the responsibility (both involvement and where it should not be involved) of government is. As Mouw said, and I said this once before, though those boundary lines are not always clear they should never be confused. Thus, our deliberation and decision and thus our part as vice regents on earth.