Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

phil_five
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 29

Posted 4/14/2003 1:21 PM (GMT -6)

Hello all. I have had some things nagging at me and thought I would share.
How much should Christians be invloved in the Government? And on that note, should we always support it. I know the Bible says that leaders are appointed by God and Christians should submit to their leadership but what if there is grey area. I mean, take this war for instance, in some Christian circles of which I am a part I feel I would be ridiclued for a bad word about the war.
And I feel it's just because it's a republican. If a democrat waged the war I really don't know how Conservative Christians would react.
Honestly, I am frustrated. Because I don't feel that politicians are really any different from each other.
I have been reading for a class about the CIA, an organization that Bush Sr. was the head of, and according to their own documents the CS of the CIA performs over 100,000 illegal acts per year, including murder, torture and human rights violations in the name of national security. The CIA has also had some notorious villians on its payroll. But yeah I may be getting too political and that's not my objective, it's just a topic that have been kinda depressing me so I thought some people here could help me with some insight.
well,
Thanks and God BLess.
Phil

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/14/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6)

Hi phil,

It seems to me undeniable that Jesus advocated some form of pacifism. Paul's comments about human government in Romans 13, like Jesus' statement about rendering to Caesar, do not teach militarism at all, though I've known many who would vainly try to argue that they did.

In my experience, many people get church and state mixed up in this discussion. The United States, though in many ways a wonderful country, is not and can not be the Church. Therefore, I don't think that the United States needs to scripturally justify itself in political and military matters (though the U.S. Gov't would certainly be responsible to its constituents, as it is a representative democracy).

As a Christian, we are unmistakably instructed to love our enemies. As an American, we may be called by our gov't to act to protect the peace of society or the world. As a Christian, this seems to come down to an issue of personal conscience.

In my opinion, what I call "the practical pacifist" point of view is the most consistent scripturally and logically. That is as a general rule, Christians are called to nonviolence. However, in some cases, the truly Christian thing to do is to protect the innocent and defenseless. I can't imagine Jesus would let someone beat or torture another person if He could do anything about it.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 4/14/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6)

Phil: Hi. Without getting into a debate, I would have to say I fully disagree with John. From my view, I don't see Jesus advocating any view of pacificism at all. In fact I could easily see him advocating the war we are currently in.
Regardless, from my own view I think people confuse Jesus's teachings which are specifically for individuals with our duty to the world as a whole.
A good book to read on the subject is "When God Says War is Right." As far as torture is concerned, I find it a very grey area. If there was a nuclear weapon in the middle of a major city and the only way to get the information as to where it is is to torture the person with the information, I would have no problem doing it.

Edited by - honorman on 04/14/2003 11:28:11 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 4/15/2003 3:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
If there was a nuclear weapon in the middle of a major city and the only way to get the information as to where it is is to torture the person with the information, I would have no problem doing it.

Watching too much tv??? :)

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/15/2003 4:19 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
If there was a nuclear weapon in the middle of a major city and the only way to get the information as to where it is is to torture the person with the information, I would have no problem doing it.

Dawg...what's that lastest Ben Affleck movie might-be-don?

Actually honorman, I think you are coming to the same conclusion as JE so therefore I don't see what the problem is.

I think it is true that Jesus demonstrated pacifism. But I don't think we should take things out of context.

A. Jesus wasn't here to promote a political movement or philosophy or what have you.
B. We need to remember the context of the early church. They were dealing with heresies from within and persecution from without so they didn't really deal with questions of political involvemen

Anyhoo, this is just a quickie response for now.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/15/2003 6:02 AM (GMT -6)

I agree that Jesus did not seek a regime-change in the political authorities of his day, he even gave them legitimacy. As a poor Jew from Nazareth, he would have no rights of citizenship anyways, and those who did try to overthrow the existing powers usually died. Moreover, thanks to the stability of the Roman Empire, Christianity was able to spread much faster.

But he did criticize the rules and abuses of power of the Jewish Authorities, a body with which he did have some rights. He also critized the wealthy. Though, I would not want to cast him in our present-day political categories. But I would say it is more complicated than we make it out, and that we should not selectively choose passages to support our existing political views, as I think is a strong temptation.

I would argue that since, "all have fallen short of the glory of God," that this clearly applies to politicians and the CIA. But part of the problem of order(as discussed in my heading under How can we "solve" the problem of evil) is the difficulty of determining right conduct in a world full of very sinful people. Ultimately, it requires taking some sinful aspects of people as given and seeking to stop others aspects from coming into fruition. I.e., Regime Change was the only thing that scared Saddam Hussein and so it had to be held over his head and prepared for, for there to be any chance that he would disarm his WMDs. And when that didn't work, the threat had to be carried out.

Now there are questions of the Bush Administration's int'l diplomacy that can be legitimately disagreed over. But generally, they could have done a much better job and the anti-war protests around the world need not have gotten so out of hand.

But I would say that, while it is good Saddam is no longer in power, that the task of reaching the arab/muslims with the gospel has not been advanced by the war and that ultimately would be what is most important for Jesus. So in my view, I think Christians have a responsibility to make sure the US does right by Iraq in the way we did with Germany and Japan and not get self-centered about ourselves now that the war is over.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 4/15/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6)

I would again say that I do not believe Jesus advocated any type of pacificism. His words were meant as a way to live life as a private individual and therefore are words for the working out of salvation as an individual, not as a citizen. Further, one must deal with the fact that Christ, as the second member of the Trinity, advocated war in the Old Testament as a means to further his goals as God. Therefore, in some sense, in a fallen world of course, God sees some use for war.
I don't believe Jesus's words of "loving your enemies" have anything to do with pacifism but rather have to do with what is best for the individual who is my enemy.
Don, while it is true that 24 is my favorite show, the example of nuclear weapons was actually brought up in an article some months ago in the local paper which dealt with the moral aspects of torture. BTW, all those questioned responded as I did.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/15/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6)

Honorman said, "I would again say that I do not believe Jesus advocated any type of pacificism. His words were meant as a way to live life as a private individual and therefore are words for the working out of salvation as an individual, not as a citizen. Further, one must deal with the fact that Christ, as the second member of the Trinity, advocated war in the Old Testament as a means to further his goals as God. Therefore, in some sense, in a fallen world of course, God sees some use for war."

First of all, exegetically speaking, we have to be careful about invoking Jesus in debates that were not prevalent during his time. Jews were not citizens then. But, Christ's ministry had both public and private aspects and dealt with more than just individual's salvation. The focus on salvation to the exclusion of other considerations hasn't been shared by all Christians in all times and places. In my humble view, Christianity is strong in the US when it failed in Europe in large part, because the Christian Churches were not captured by the gov'ts like in Europe, and here they historically did serve as intermediaries for individuals.

John Perkins, the prominent African-American Evangelical, talks about how Jesus in reaching out to the Samaritan woman at the well used her perceived material need of water as a bridge to being able to address her true deeper spiritual need.

I think that provides some biblical basis for concerning ourselves in the short-run with other concerns besides getting as many people saved as possible... .

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/15/2003 7:23 AM (GMT -6)

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 4/15/2003 9:25 AM (GMT -6)

DLW: having studied the subject well enough to form an opinion I am secure in what I have said. Jesus was not an pacifist.

Edited by - honorman on 04/15/2003 2:26:49 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/15/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Though, I would not want to cast him in our present-day political categories. But I would say it is more complicated than we make it out, and that we should not selectively choose passages to support our existing political views, as I think is a strong temptation.

and

First of all, exegetically speaking, we have to be careful about invoking Jesus in debates that were not prevalent during his time.

Hmmm...aren't you doing that from silence DLW? Does this mean that the Bible DOESN'T INFORM US? Here is an excellent article that was in Christianity Today in November. I think Greg would HIGHLY disagree with Skillen here and possibly Electra as well.

Home > Christianity Today Magazine > Hot Issues > Politics & Law

Christianity Today, November 18, 2002

Civic-Minded and Heavenly Good
How Christians should practice 'right politics.'
by James W. Skillen | posted 11/15/2002

Progress often comes from hurting others." That, according to Robert Kaplan, is Machiavelli's cruel but accurate assessment of political reality. And that is why America's political leaders today need a pagan rather than a Christian ethic if they are to defend American lives and interests. So says Kaplan, author of Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos (Random House, 2002). "Machiavelli," says Kaplan, "believed that because Christianity glorified the meek, it allowed the world to be dominated by the wicked: he preferred a pagan ethic that elevated self- preservation over the Christian ethic of sacrifice."

Exactly right, says Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas. "War becomes the great event in American life, because that's when we send the young out to die and be killed….It's an extraordinary sacrificial system, but sacrificing to the wrong god, Mars….Christianity is an alternative to that sacrificial system" (quoted in Mark Oppenheimer, "For God, Not Country," Lingua Franca, September 2001).

Kaplan the political warrior and Hauerwas the pacifist agree: it is time to break up a Christian- pagan political marriage that should never have taken place. Kaplan thinks Christianity's private morality offers no public virtue. Hauerwas believes that Christianity's greatest virtue is displayed when Christ's followers renounce all use of violence. Furthermore, they say we can't have it both ways. If you want to protect America and the best of its "private, Judeo-Christian morality," says Kaplan, you will have to work publicly to uphold good pagan virtue for "the preservation and augmentation of American power." On the other hand, if you want to be an undivided Christian, according to Hauerwas, you must relinquish the ungodly identification of Christianity with patriotism, and follow Christ, pure and simple.

Wrong and right politics
But are these the only two choices? Is there another way forward? Indeed, I believe the wholehearted following of Jesus Christ does entail a public ethos that stands in marked contrast to Kaplan's pagan ethos.

Furthermore, Christ's lordship sustains a role for human government that stands in marked contrast to the pacifism advocated by Hauerwas.

We need not dwell long on Kaplan's contention that Christianity offers no public ethic. His book is typical of those who are largely ignorant of Christianity and read it only through the eyes of Kant, Nietzsche, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Nietzsche, like Machiavelli, rejected as a grave human error the soft, unmanly meekness of Christianity. Niebuhr, though, is said to be the most important public theologian of the 20th century. But his view of the direct public usefulness of the Christian love ethic was dim.

With Hauerwas, however, we must spend more time. First, he does not stand alone. He speaks for a growing community of Christians who look to the moral theology of John Howard Yoder and to the biblical exegesis of theologian Richard Hays. All three men believe that Jesus Christ has called his followers to live as an entirely new community—a new polis (Greek for "city"). The members of this polis worship, evangelize, and pursue social justice together as an alternative society that lives in contradiction to the world.

In an important 1979 essay titled "The Spirit of God and the Politics of Men" (published in For the Nations, Eerdmans, 1997), Yoder argues that Christians should be guided by the claims of God upon the one real world which he intends by the power of his Spirit to redeem. The choice or the tension which the Bible is concerned with is not between politics and something else which is not politics, but between right politics and wrong politics. Not between "spirit" and something else which is not spiritual, but between true and false spirits. Not between God and something else unrelated to God, but between the true God and false gods.

Hauerwas fully affirms Yoder's call for a "right politics" of the Christian community. And that, Hauerwas insists, demands a politics of nonviolence. "That Christians are committed to nonviolence does not entail, as is often assumed, that Christians must withdraw from the world. The church of Jesus Christ must be in the world as he was in the world." Yoder's case for Christian nonviolence, says Hauerwas, "is compelling because his understanding and justification of nonviolence cannot be separated from the Christian conviction that God is our creator and redeemer. Yoder forces us to see that the doctrines of God and nonviolence are constitutive of one another" (With the Grain of the Universe, Brazos, 2001). Nonviolence is thus central to the church and "right politics." And this should be on display in God's new political community, the church.

To sum up, then, these authors believe Christians are called to live in an entirely new community, a new polis. And this polis should be characterized by, among other traits, nonviolence.

But are these ideas biblical?

Misuse of violence
Let's begin with the issue of nonviolence. This is where New Testament scholar Richard Hays comes in support of Hauerwas and Yoder. Hays contends in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) that Yoder and Hauerwas are correct. From Matthew to Revelation, writes Hays, "we find a consistent witness against violence and a calling to the community to follow the example of Jesus in accepting suffering rather than inflicting it."

Yet Hays handles the words violence and nonviolence in a way that obscures the scriptural texts he deals with. Violence, as Hays uses it, always denotes or connotes "inflicting suffering" on others, hurting or killing or forcefully taking advantage of others. Furthermore, violence is the word that all three authors use when referring to the actions of the military and police. Hays concludes that the New Testament teaches that violence can never be used in the defense of justice. Consequently, true Christian community can have no part in the political communities of this world. Instead it is an alternative polis, a different kind of city. It is a community with a government quite unlike that of the United States or any other country.

But Hays fails to take up the Bible's actual language about the use of force. The New Testament does not use the word violence to refer to all uses of force. It, like the Old Testament, speaks of reprehensible acts of murder and killing. It also speaks of vengeance, retribution, and punishment. It says the killing of one's neighbor is murder and merits punishment. Biblical writers do not portray the use of force to punish the murderer as a parallel evil, but as just retribution. The punishment of the murderer by a God-ordained government is just recompense, not unjust violence.

The argument turns on Romans 12 and 13. From Yoder's highly influential The Politics of Jesus (1972) up through Hays's Moral Vision, these three theologians interpret this passage as follows: God condemns all violence, including the taking of vengeance upon one's neighbor. Instead, Paul urges Christians to return good for evil and to leave wrath to God (12:17–21). Consequently, since the responsibility of government includes the use of force against evildoers (13:3, 5), governmental offices are off-limits to Christians. That kind of government is part of the politics of violence and cannot be part of the Christian polis, or political community.

Quite in contrast to this interpretation, another one flows much more naturally and coherently from the epistle. Indeed, Paul, like Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, tells Christians that they should return good for evil and turn the other cheek. Their lives are to exhibit loving service to their neighbors. Personal vengeance is off-limits because it grows from pride and self-seeking. Leave revenge to God, says Paul, because, as the Scriptures say, " 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord" (12:19).

Yet it follows directly from this, according to Paul, that God has established governing authorities precisely in order to execute some of that divine vengeance (13:1, 4). Government bears this responsibility not as an extension of human vengeance but as a servant of God. Government is not the independently authorized power of Caesar, but "God's servant to do you good" (13:4).

This is in keeping with the Old Testament and with the whole tenor of his letter. Paul is telling Roman Christians to recognize Christ's lordship by loving and serving their neighbors for their good, in every office they may hold. They should do this by responding nonviolently personally to any attacks—and by allowing God, through the governing authorities, to execute any forceful judgment that may be necessary against those who do such evil things.

If Christians find themselves in positions of governing authority, they must recognize, as every official must, that they are servants of God's justice. They are not personal vengeance-takers or representatives of vengeful friends and neighbors. In a position of political authority, their task is still to do good to their neighbors. But in this office, that will require punishing evildoers as well as commending those who do good. It is no contradiction for a Christian, on the one hand, to exercise restraint by not taking personal vengeance, and on the other hand, to exercise the responsibilities of a God-ordained office by executing God's vengeance. In both cases one is called to act as a wholehearted, undivided servant of the Lord. And in both cases one must be willing to sacrifice one's life for the good of one's neighbors in carrying out that service.

Beyond alternatives
But the issues raised by these three thinkers go deeper than the narrow question of the use of force. They extend to the very identity of "Christian community." The Christ presented to us by the Gospel writers and apostles is the one who announces upon his resurrection that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). He is the Lord before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Phil. 2:10–11). He is the one for whom all thrones and powers, all rulers and authorities, were created (Col. 1:16). Clearly, Jesus did not call his disciples to engineer the fulfillment of his kingdom by force, or to compel anyone to bow before the risen Lord (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43; Acts 1:6–8). Yet as these passages show, Christ's lordship extends beyond the community of believers. The Christ whom we have been called to serve is not only head of the church but also the supreme authority in everything in heaven and on Earth (Col. 1:17–20). The implications of this confession for our life in society are huge.

Just as marriage and family life belong by creation to people outside the household of faith, so business and agriculture, science and art, schooling and government belong to all human creatures. I agree entirely with Yoder that the Bible is concerned with the difference between "right politics and wrong politics." Christians should indeed be demonstrating faithfulness as a community by the way they pursue "right" families, "right" businesses, and "right" politics. However, in imagining that we should pursue right politics through the church as an alternative polis, Yoder, Hauerwas, and Hays confuse the Bible's teachings on creation and redemption.

The followers of Christ are certainly a called-out community, called out from sin to become a community of obedience to God. But they are not called out of God's creation. Think for a moment of the biblical language used to characterize Christ's followers: bride of Christ, the children of their Father in heaven, brothers and sisters of their elder brother Jesus, joint heirs with Christ, a community of priests, disciples (students) in the school of a new teacher, and certainly citizens in Christ's kingdom. The primary referents in all of these metaphors are the very creaturely realities in which the people of God live.

To live as a member of God's family, I do not disown my parents but rather obey them as unto the Lord. Likewise, in order to participate in the Christian community as a citizen of Christ's polis (kingdom), I do not take leave of my citizenship. Rather, I act as a citizen in obedience to the Lord in accord with teachings such as those in Romans 12 and 13. The church, then, is not an alternative to any of these creaturely realities. It represents, instead, the fulfillment of them all in Christ.

The three theologians confuse matters by speaking of the church as an alternative polis. They would equally confuse us if they spoke of the church as an alternative family, or as an alternative business enterprise, or as alternative school. The church is not an alternative to anything that God created for human development. Rather, the Christian community is that people whom God has restored to their creaturely callings as forgiven sinners, who are being redeemed by their Savior, Jesus Christ. The Christian community is composed of those who are learning to turn from habits of sinful degradation in all areas of life and seeking to demonstrate God-honoring earthly stewardship. Only when Christ's kingdom comes in its fullness will God put the full "alternative" community on display. And of course at that point of eschatological celebration, the people of God will constitute the creation fulfilled.

Christians may pretend in this age to live in a community they call an alternative polis, which among other things renounces the use of force for the sake of justice. But calling such a community a "political community" will not make it so. And in the meantime, the Kaplans of this world will go on deciding, with a pagan ethic, how to use military and police force. They have concluded that Christianity has nothing to offer, no criteria for judging the just and unjust performance of governments.

Instead, to be authentic Christians, to be able to serve our civic neighbors throughout the world, Christians need to be involved as real citizens in real governments, exhibiting a genuinely Christian public ethic. Such a responsibility will include working for the restraint of personal vengeance. And it will entail the exercise of official, publicly accountable punishment of those who commit crimes and unjust aggression.

Turning from injustice, faithlessness, hatred, and greed in every sphere of life requires constructive, communal service by those who are being redeemed from sin. When Christ, by the power of the Spirit, has finished making all things new, we will then be able to sing with the saints of all ages, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).

James W. Skillen is president of the Center for Public Justice (www.cpjustice.org).

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Edited by - BBBCanada on 04/15/2003 4:11:41 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/15/2003 5:54 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

[quote]Though, I would not want to cast him in our present-day political categories. But I would say it is more complicated than we make it out, and that we should not selectively choose passages to support our existing political views, as I think is a strong temptation.

and

First of all, exegetically speaking, we have to be careful about invoking Jesus in debates that were not prevalent during his time.

Hmmm...aren't you doing that from silence DLW? Does this mean that the Bible DOESN'T INFORM US? Here is an excellent article that was in Christianity Today in November. I think Greg would HIGHLY disagree with Skillen here and possibly Electra as well.

DLW:Let me clarify myself, I was not saying that Christians should not develop habits of reflection regarding political activism and how it relates to their faith. This clearly includes meditating on the "public" aspects of Jesus' ministry on earth. What I was objecting to was the view of presenting certain political positions as definitely what Jesus would support. The mixing of the invocation of the name of God with fallible political positions has not served to advance the Kingdom of God, generally speaking.

And, if by saying that Jesus would not be a pacifist, you are saying there are situations whereby he may view that some military action can be justified due to the fallen nature of the world, I would agree. I got worked up when some anti-war friends told me that the movie, "The Pianist" was an anti-war film, because if it had not been for the peace-niks seeking to assure peace within our time when Hitler invaded Poland, there would have been no consolidation of German power and Nazi Holocaust and World War II would have been a lot shorter/bloody.

But my point, is that the critical(and fallible) judgements made regarding such things cannot be justified completely through appealing to scriptures, since they involve many factors that differ considerably from the issues/situations that the early Christian Church/Hebraic people faced. This is why these judgements are necessarily fallible...

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 4/15/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

Excellant article, though I find it sad that he doesn't go into Kaplan. Kaplan's book is excellant and though i would disagree with how he sees Christianity, he still has a lot of good to say. Yoder and his bunch simply read into the Bible what they want to see. If the Kaplans of the world believe the church has nothing to offer, its because people like Yoder will not stand up to the evil around them...

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/16/2003 4:23 AM (GMT -6)

DLW,

OK. I see where yer coming from. We talked about that (objecting to the view of presenting certain political positions as definitely what Jesus would support) before on the "Christian and Politics???" thread. That's coo.

quote:
But my point, is that the critical(and fallible) judgements made regarding such things cannot be justified completely through appealing to scriptures, since they involve many factors that differ considerably from the issues/situations that the early Christian Church/Hebraic people faced.

Right. This is why we need to "know the cultural language" as Mouw puts it. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is helpful here. Good stuff.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/16/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6)

Don't be sad honordad, the article was not meant to go into Kaplan's stuff.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/16/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6)

Hi honorman,

Could you tell me how my view (cut and pasted from my first post in this thread) differs materially with your own view?

(Begin Quote of myself)

In my experience, many people get church and state mixed up in this discussion. The United States, though in many ways a wonderful country, is not and can not be the Church. Therefore, I don't think that the United States needs to scripturally justify itself in political and military matters (though the U.S. Gov't would certainly be responsible to its constituents, as it is a representative democracy).

As a Christian, we are unmistakably instructed to love our enemies. As an American, we may be called by our gov't to act to protect the peace of society or the world. As a Christian, this seems to come down to an issue of personal conscience.

(End Quote)

In the above, I clearly make the distinction between personal and political and plainly state, "As an American, we may be called by our gov't to act to protect the peace of society or the world." I also never once referred to the present conflict in Iraq. Over and over I have seen people get the church confused with the state in this sort of discussion.

I think we absolutely must differentiate these things, and we also must include defense of the innocent and the defenseless in our assessment of the proper moral response to violence.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 4/16/2003 10:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
But my point, is that the critical(and fallible) judgements made regarding such things cannot be justified completely through appealing to scriptures, since they involve many factors that differ considerably from the issues/situations that the early Christian Church/Hebraic people faced.

Brandon:Right. This is why we need to "know the cultural language" as Mouw puts it. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is helpful here. Good stuff.

Yes, but more than that... . We need to be willing to change our minds regarding what would jesus do if he had our political capital. This also includes choosing our battles very carefully with the existing political systems when many aspects of it will fall short of the glory of God... . These all involve fallible judgements and, while there is evidence of Paul doing the same in the Bible(i.e., Slavery), the precise form of Christian Solidarity Churches should strive for in these measures is open for discussion/determination.

This reflects how the view of freedom is richer in open theism than arminianism, whereby we are free to disobey God's will, but do not have an open role wrt to creation and the ecclesiastical order of the Church.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 4/16/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6)

John: I think we are basically on the same page. I simply react very strongly to using the word "pacifist" when describing Jesus. I see nothing in the NT to really bolster that claim, plus I think, in today's society, what comes with the word gives the wrong impression.
In fact, after rereading what you wrote I would say I agree with it. So I apologize, because I think I misread what you wrote the first time.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual