 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Awesome series Doc! Thank you so much for that! I'm still going through it via your website, and I was wondering if you guys could help clarify...how do we DO this?? Or how have YOU applied this? I mean, do we use our voice and our vote to try to make His "will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or do we just leave politics alone? Or do we do politics, but not let our Christianity affect it? How do we DO politics in this country as aliens?? I know we can't do anything that will compromise love...but what is love? Is love hugging a person while they've got a gun to their head saying, "I'll love you even if you kill yourself." Or is love snatching the gun away from them and THEN hugging them? ARGH!!! I need to keep listening to the messages to digest this (i'm kinda slow). How have you guys been applying what Doc is preaching on?
Peace.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/25/2004 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Re-posted:
F.Y.I.:
Awesome new series...
=====================================================
.
~THE CROSS AND THE SWORD~
.
=====================================================
.
Excerpt from April 18, 2004 Study Guide:
SUMMARY:
"[Dr. Boyd] started a short series today on 'The Cross and the Sword.'
The basic distinction we need to learn as Christians who live
'in the world but not of the world' is this: we live in the Kingdom of Darkness but serve the Kingdom of God.
The message was about the different ways these two kingdoms understand the use of power. Because the use of power was the topic, the issue of politics is inevitably involved.
Greg did not propose support for one political agenda or another, but helped us assess how we, as citizens of heaven, are to understand political involvement...."
...(continued in sermon study guide; link attached below).
The four sermons in this series are available at the
Woodland Hills Church website, or through the links attached below.
EXCERPT:
....."Below are resources from our most recent weekend services.
Each week we try to have the previous weekend's sermon and study guide ready by Tuesday at 5:00...."
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 1:
• April 18, 2004 – Taking America Back for God? , Greg Boyd – sermon length is 38:44 minutes
Greg questions the slogan "Taking America Back for God" by discussing the differences between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God. As Christians, we are to belong first and foremost to God's Kingdom, yet live under the governments of this world. How does that work?
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 4.43 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for_God.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 17.7 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for-God_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for-God.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.04.18.doc
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 2:
• April 25, 2004 - The Difference Between the Two Kingdoms, Greg Boyd – sermon length is 43:43 minutes.
.
The Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world are two very separate things.
One uses the sword (power over) to influence people; the other uses love (power under). To understand this distinction is much easier than letting it affect the way we live. Greg continues to discuss the differences between these kingdoms and how we are to live within the distinction.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 5.0 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 20.0 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.04.25.doc
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 3:
• May 2, 2004 – Abortion: A Kingdom of God Approach, Greg Boyd – sermon length is 38:41 minutes.
.
The Cross and the Sword series continues with this sermon, which covers
two more consequences of fusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of the World.
To illustrate the damage this can cause, Greg discusses using the Kingdom of God approach with abortion: don't limit ourselves to the options given by the Kingdom of the World, but ascribe unsurpassable worth to others (mother and baby) at cost to ourselves. This is the unique mission of the Kingdom of God, and it's not easy.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 4.43 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-02_Boyd_Abortion-A-Kingdom-of-God-Approach.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 17.7 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-02_Boyd_Abortion-A-Kingdom-of-God-Approach_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004
Study Guide:
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.05.02.doc
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 4:
• May 9, 2004 – Is the Church the Guardian of Social Morality?, , Greg Boyd – sermon length is 44:28 minutes
.
The Cross and the Sword series is concluded with this sermon, which covers the final effect of failing to distinguish between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world: we Christians begin to see ourselves as the “protectors” and “fixers” of social morality, as the moral standard bearers. But our only job as the body of Christ is to look like Jesus, the one sinless human, who stood in unity with others and met their needs. Greg also addresses the idea that America is a theocracy.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 5.09 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-Church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 20.3 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-Church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.05.09.doc
.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Source:
• • WOODLAND HILLS CHURCH - Sermons:
http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_26.htm
• • MOST RECENT SERMONS:
http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_173.htm
Enjoy!
<><
.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 5/27/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by hand_carved
Yeah, so does an opinion have nothing to do with who and what you are "in Christ?" How do we love Christ with our opinion, our power that has been given to us by our government? Is there no such thing as an un-Christlike opinion? Is your opinion on the same spiritual par as blinking, breathing, and coughing? I don't know...surely not.
Here's a simple example:
Jack and Jill, both Christians.
Should taxes be cut or increased?
Jack: Cut; cutting taxes allows people to invest in companies which hire, reducing unemployment.
Jill: Raised; raising taxes permits the government to help the poor.
OK, now you have two opposing views, both from Christians. This is OKay. The one with the best empirical data should win (but often doesn't)
This is NOT Okay:
Jack: All Christians should be for cutting taxes, all pastors should advocate cutting taxes from the pulpit. The tax cutting political party is the PARTY OF GOD.
Jill: All Christians should be for raising taxes to feed the poor. All pastors should advocate raising taxes from the pulpit. The tax raising party is the PARTY OF GOD.
See the difference? Yes there are "un-Christ-like" opinions, some are more easily identified than others. But there are many opinions we cannot identify as Christ-like or not.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 5/27/2004 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake
quote:
Originally posted by hand_carved
Yeah, so does an opinion have nothing to do with who and what you are "in Christ?" How do we love Christ with our opinion, our power that has been given to us by our government? Is there no such thing as an un-Christlike opinion? Is your opinion on the same spiritual par as blinking, breathing, and coughing? I don't know...surely not.
Here's a simple example:
Jack and Jill, both Christians.
Should taxes be cut or increased?
Jack: Cut; cutting taxes allows people to invest in companies which hire, reducing unemployment.
Jill: Raised; raising taxes permits the government to help the poor.
OK, now you have two opposing views, both from Christians. This is OKay. The one with the best empirical data should win (but often doesn't)
This is NOT Okay:
Jack: All Christians should be for cutting taxes, all pastors should advocate cutting taxes from the pulpit. The tax cutting political party is the PARTY OF GOD.
Jill: All Christians should be for raising taxes to feed the poor. All pastors should advocate raising taxes from the pulpit. The tax raising party is the PARTY OF GOD.
See the difference? Yes there are "un-Christ-like" opinions, some are more easily identified than others. But there are many opinions we cannot identify as Christ-like or not.
Precisely! That's a good example. Amen Swan.
love
selah
P.S. I find the study guides (and massive reps. of sermons whilst cleaning house) very helpful.
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 5/27/2004 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Cool. Thanks Swan. quote:
Yes there are "un-Christ-like" opinions, some are more easily identified than others. But there are many opinions we cannot identify as Christ-like or not.
So, okay how do you be Christlike in moral/ethical legislation? I mean, it is obvious that it is NOT God's will that anyone worship anything other than Himself, so do you vote for freedom of religion? Why not pass a bill making gluttony illegal? Or greed? These are all obviously against God's will. Why stop with murder and theft? We've outlawed prostitution and polygamy, why not adultery? Jesus didn't try to shake the way government works, so does that mean that no Christian should go into politics? We should leave it to the pagans? Is it impossible to embrace the cross (power under) and hold the sword (power over) at the same time? What do we do with this "marriage is between a man and a woman only" bill? I have no idea. There has obviously GOT to be a line drawn SOMEWHERE...
...but then again, any line drawn anywhere demands a lack of consistancy: I will be against other religions in this room, but when I step into this room I'm okay with other religions being practiced. It seems really hipocritical. It's like the only way to avoid hipocracy is to not vote or be involved in politics at all, or at least on the moral/ethical issues.
I agree that we can't expect non-Christians to be Christlike...but again, where do you draw the line of tolerance? You love AND punish the murderer, but love and do not punish the hate-er?
I guess you could operate by the principle "I want x, but I will allow y." I mean, God has a will for our lives, but gave us free will to do WHATEVER we want. It is his desire not to force us to do His will, but to allow us to freely choose it. There will be consequences for our decisions in the end, but until then...we're free to murder, free to steal... So apply WWJD to government, and it seems like you would have anarchy.
So where do you draw the line? It's okay to vote for a tax cut, to ban murder, to ban theft, to ban prostitution, to ban polygamy, but it's not okay to vote (or pass a bill) to ban adultery, or pornography, or gluttony, or gossip, or homosexuality, or Wicca?????????
"Fool me once...shame on.....shame on you. Gafooomee, we can't get fooled again." | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 5/27/2004 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by hand_carved
So where do you draw the line? It's okay to vote for a tax cut, to ban murder, to ban theft, to ban prostitution, to ban polygamy, but it's not okay to vote (or pass a bill) to ban adultery, or pornography, or gluttony, or gossip, or homosexuality, or Wicca?????????
 Ban Wicca????
WHAT'S WRONG WITH WICCA???
Oh. OKay.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2004 9:59 PM (GMT -6) | | good quesiton hand-carved... I hope you feel its been answered. Just to reiterate and maybe expand a bit...
our version of the kingdom of the world asks our opinion. give it... but
the minute you begin thinking about this or any other version of the kingdom of the world, there is a mass of unresolvable polarities you get looped into (unless you've been indoctrinated into one side of the polarity, in which case everything appears crystal clear). About such polarities Christians (and all others) can and do disagree. Things are very very rarely clear cut, as in "good" and "evil"...
But the goal in all power-over shemes is to win. To win in a democracy you need votes, which means you need a) to make the opposition look bad and b) propoganda to influence and motivate the masses to your agenda. hence, the ambiguity in most issues must be ignored and opponents demonized. this is standard fare for kingdom of the world poltics...
When the church gets sucked into this it allows the kingdom of the world to defne what issues its speaks to, how it defines those issues and how it defines the solutions ot those issues. It to this extent gets defined as a religious version of the kingdom of the world and misses its distinctive calling to offer a genuine ALTERNATIVE that would glorify Christ (instead of one of the parties in the Kingdom of the world) and it invariably divides within itself... with different Christians prononces different sides to be "THE Christian" position.
So when asked your opinion, give it. But don't mistake this for being you're distincdtly Christian contribution to the world.
The distinctive Christian way of influencing the world is imitating Jesus. This we are called to do individually and corporately.
Nothing else (as a Church).
If we did this consistently, I believe it would be profoundly politically relevant, in just the same way Jesus was profoundly politically relevant. (See Yoder's book, The Politics of Jesus).
Blessings
GB
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2004 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
good quesiton hand-carved... I hope you feel its been answered. Just to reiterate and maybe expand a bit...
our version of the kingdom of the world asks our opinion. give it... but
1. There are conceptual problems with viewing votes as opinions, because it abstracts from the importance of deliberative vs. non-deliberative decision-making. I.e., many are non-deliberative in how they deal with politics because they have the interest/incentive to deliberate and believe it won't make a difference anyways. So they use short-cuts.
But for democracy to work, it requires that a critical amount of the population develop habits of political deliberation. This was the view of the first revolutionaries. http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2610&SearchTerms=,Liberty,Freedom
But how are people to inculcate habits of deliberation when it doesn't serve their own interests and its not fun or a pleasant subject for the most part? It's only worthwhile if doing so is a way of glorifying God and winning the opportunity to witness to others.
But Greg Boyd doesn't encourage such habits. If anything he may even discourage them, some. The dichotomy Cross/Sword and whether some party/group is just trying to get power(Sword) can be applied too selectively to set out the pastor/theologians' views as a substitute for encouraging others to deliberate further on issues.
Take for example, Jack and Jill from the above examples given. I don't suppose either one of them would be encouraged by Boyd's sermons to suggest, "hey, lets check out a book on public finance and see what the experts on taxation have to say on this matter?" They may do so and find out that, because of the complexity of the existing tax-system and the difficulties of predicting the behavioral impact of changes, its not clear what the full consequences of making changes would be. In which case, Jack and Jill may just turn to each other and say, "You know, we could've been reading the Bible and sharing Jesus with others for the entirety of the time we've been trying to make heads and tails of this public-finance stuff." or they could say, "You know, I bet there are ways we could make reforms to simplify and test for the impact of tax-changes so that there could be a lot more transparency as to their impact, so we may be able to work out our differences in a more meaningful manner."
quote:
the minute you begin thinking about this or any other version of the kingdom of the world, there is a mass of unresolvable polarities you get looped into (unless you've been indoctrinated into one side of the polarity, in which case everything appears crystal clear). About such polarities Christians (and all others) can and do disagree. Things are very very rarely clear cut, as in "good" and "evil"...
But there are also "facts" that transcend conflicting normative values at stake and that can be delineated carefully in a manner that inhibits either side to just ideologically manipulate itself into a predominant position.
quote:
But the goal in all power-over shemes is to win. To win in a democracy you need votes, which means you need a) to make the opposition look bad and b) propoganda to influence and motivate the masses to your agenda. hence, the ambiguity in most issues must be ignored and opponents demonized. this is standard fare for kingdom of the world poltics...
true that. But how does one counteract the ubiquitous attempts at ideological manipulation? [inculcating habits of deliberation]
quote:
When the church gets sucked into this it allows the kingdom of the world to defne what issues its speaks to, how it defines those issues and how it defines the solutions ot those issues. It to this extent gets defined as a religious version of the kingdom of the world and misses its distinctive calling to offer a genuine ALTERNATIVE that would glorify Christ (instead of one of the parties in the Kingdom of the world) and it invariably divides within itself... with different Christians prononces different sides to be "THE Christian" position.
The framing of issues is often essential and a source of ideological manipulation. Christians shouldn't just accept the framing determined by the kingdom of this world. And, in trying to frame it differently, care needs to be taken to not just embed a particular normative stance as "the Christian" position.
quote:
So when asked your opinion, give it. But don't mistake this for being you're distincdtly Christian contribution to the world.
Opinion is too trivial, it implicitly accepts existing frames. And helping to frame issues in a less manicheistic manner can be a distinctive contribution to the world, letting one's light as a Christian shine.
quote:
The distinctive Christian way of influencing the world is imitating Jesus. This we are called to do individually and corporately.
Nothing else (as a Church).
We need to ask ourselves WWJD and follow through even at cost to ourselves and others. This delves into how we determine to let our lights shine before the world, something that is not set out for us deterministically by the Bible, which isn't a blue-print for what is right conduct in every conceivable ethical situation. That is why Christians have traditionally relied upon their fallible traditions, based on scripture, experience and received and ongoing deliberations, to determine important matters like how they relate to the State.
quote:
If we did this consistently, I believe it would be profoundly politically relevant, in just the same way Jesus was profoundly politically relevant. (See Yoder's book, The Politics of Jesus).
Blessings
GB
I think given the wooliness of the matter that it is more difficult to use the word consistent.
I am not sure what you mean by politically relevant. I would think this would be derivative from Paul's counsel to Timothy that, "all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:39 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|