Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/4/2006 5:04:51 PM (GMT-5)

Zach, this could potentially start to get a slightly confusing, so I’m just going to hit on a few pivotal points as I see them.

Brandon: What this means is that we don’t exercise “Lion type” or “Kingly discipline” SIMPLY TO COERCE OR MANIPULATE OTHERS. We don’t restrict something JUST BECAUSE it is sinful. Only when legislation has the aim of a more equitable distribution of rights and opportunities then and only then are we justified in promoting such legislation. I’m sorry to see that many Christians don’t get this difference.

Zach: You've made an illogical leap here. You first say that God is not coercive in the garden, so we should not be coercive. Then you say that we can be coercive if we are being equitable. These two conflict. They cannot both be true. Either we "give them a choice and they are free to follow it" or not. If we allow freedom (like God), then most likely we (like God) are allowing inequity. It sound to me like you are giving a more Calvinistic view of freedom. "God allows people freedom, except when they don't do what he wants." It not truly freedom.

Brandon:  Let’s remember something here.  I’m the one who is not fully against coercion.  That’s you.  There is a difference between coercive behavior in which we manipulate others simply because we don’t like their sin and coercive behavior when the aim is to provide distribution of rights and opportunities.  When I used the example in the Garden I’m speaking of God NOT doing the first of these.  God is not a selfish despot.  And so, neither should we be.  At the same time, I’m not against the “kingly discipline” (which has often made me wonder why we take the metaphor of “The Lamb” over “The Lion” as our pivotal metaphor).

But guess what?  Governing, governments, politics?  All of them can dehumanize, but they can also HUMANIZE.  I would not hold to authority and power of the kind that would produce domination, disrespect for human dignity and real or potential violence.  But I hold that certain political structures expedite either negatively or positively patterns of sociality.  Sometimes “politics” and “political systems” and “technology” are viewed as mere means for attaining certain desired social goals. In a neurotic institution the “politics” and “political systems” and “technology” become THE GOAL of institutional activity.

Think of a library for an example. We have rules, regulations, and technology, cards, system classification, neat rows of books, etc, such that the library can attain the goal of providing the circulation of books to readers. You know, “legislation that has the aim of a more equitable distribution of rights and opportunities?” However, on occasion, the maintenance of such things BECOMES THE GOAL ITSELF such that the borrower or the clientele (whom the system was set up for in the FIRST PLACE) becomes an enemy (detrimental to the new goal of managing the institutional structure) and a threat to the system. Under such a system, the MEETING OF HUMAN NEEDS and DESIRES (which were originally the proper goals of the arrangement) become secondary.

What do I mean by that?  It’s this.  It is possible for some or all of the parties to become “objects.” That is to be manipulated for the sake of the managing of either the relationship or the institution. Guess what this is called? Yep. DEHUMANIZATION. Even Christianity itself can be an occasion for neurotic patterns. One’s relationship with God deteriorates into LEGALISM. A rigid submission to God’s commandments in which the law becomes something to be obeyed and the individual adopts the role of law-obeyed and the management of this relationship between the commandment and the one commanded becomes a matter of primary importance. The dimension of spontaneity and affection which ought to characterize the relationship is lost. When you realize that legalism is a distortion of what the actual relationship should be, then you realize that the relation between two persons is of primary importance. It is the distortion of the relationship (which is what sin is) that brings the distortion and perversion of everything else.

Besides not calling libraries systems evil, again, I think it’s sad that many Christians don’t recognize this difference between these two kinds of coerecion.

Zach: Jesus is God. God is not powerless! God is strong! The cross does not prove that Jesus was powerless for however a brief period of time. Jesus was, is, and will be God. He is always strong! Subordinate? yes. Powerless? no way!

Brandon: This is starting to make me wonder if you understand Yoder’s position or not.  The idea is that we should reject “governmental domination” as Christ has.  Christ accepts “voluntary subordination.”  But his use of this “accepting powerlessness” involves the refusal to exercise “brute power” or “violent lordship” or “governmental domination” as noted above in both instances.  The first instance, I would not agree with.  That is not what Jesus did.  The second one is what I would adhere to and it is not at all clear to me that Jesus would NOT go with number two as well.  I really don’t know of any other way to say this.  But I don’t see the use of ALL power and authority as ALL bad.  So, does government coerce?  Well, when you ask about ideal government I would say that some form of governing which means coercion in the second sense above would have been necessary even if sin had not enter into the picture.

Zach: Where does Paul suggest this? Where does he say that either our life or death is to be painless or stoic? I fine with having the confidence of Socrates, because Jesus had as much confidence and more.

Brandon: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"  I know you want to interpret that this means that the sting is sin and sin is the law, but I think that’s a very strained reading from the text.  Bottomline, is that we don’t have to face death in the manner of Christ, especially if there wasn’t total and complete powerlessness on ANY LEVEL there (admittedly, this is not the be-all end all of the argument, as this argument only works with the other arguments involved but it is to say that on the most basic of levels, we don’t have to do everything the way Jesus did it).

Zach: Agreed. Jesus only submitted to the Powers because his Father told him to. He said that he does nothing that the Father doesn't tell him. Likewise, we only submit to the Powers because our Lord commands us to.

and

Zach: Yes, we will rule with him. And yes, he overcame the powers BY SUBMISSION, not powerlessness.

Brandon: I don’t think you are seeing what I’m saying here.

I don’t know what you are agreeing to here.  I never said Jesus submitted to the Powers.  I say exactly the opposite of that.  There was NO submission to the powers.  I don’t think anybody would say that Christ would not do what his Father told him.  But where do you read in the text that it says that Christ to submitted to Powers because God told him? Subordination and therefore submission is to God and if anything, Christ throughout his ministry confronts and opposes the Powers of which it is not at all clear to me that he didn’t use Power to do so in the Passion.  So when I say…

What this means is that it really isn’t that accurate to say that TWO things were going on at Calvary-- “subordination to the father” and “submission to the Powers.” It would be more accurate to say that the payment for sin REQUIRED A VICTORY OVER the Powers and that this encounter, this CONFRONTATION with the Powers is what it took for Jesus to “pay it all.”

I’m saying that the ransom act was a quasi-legal transaction (I still don’t abandon such notions in our post-modern theology) such that there is an integral relationship between payment and encounters with the Powers.  That is by his death we are reconciled with God and by his death he confronts (not merely encounter or face) the Powers (not submits to them) and that this act of confronting is an ELEMENT in the offering as ransom, such that if Jesus does not confront them, then it is not possible for us to say that “Jesus paid it all.”  Somehow, someway, this transaction, this payment for sin REQUIRED a victory over the powers.  By require, I mean, to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly, to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.  In other words there was in someway, a forced, or coerced victory and that without this, it would be impossible to say that Jesus, “Paid it all.”

 Zach: What is the alternative? Inconsistently and partially? "This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" except when ____?____. The most often repeated teaching of Jesus in the gospels is that his followers must take up their crosses. If there is any starting place for building a Christian theology or ethic, it has got to be what Jesus did and said.

Brandon: This is where what I said above about this not being the be-all-end-all of the argument comes in.  Because if Christ faced it with coercion, then it could be argued that we don’t have to face it like that because we don’t have to do everything that Jesus did.  However, that argument is to criticize this at it’s most basic of levels.  If there are other arguments in favor of coercion, then it is to say that it is not necessary that we have to face death in the way that the Anabaptist tradition interprets it.  The bottom line is that we don’t exercised coercive force in the way that Jesus doesn’t want us to, but this is not to say that we NEVER exercise coercive force.  And if you are concerned about a Christian theology or ethic that starts with what Jesus did and said, then you have to look at ALL of what he did and said.

Zach: Here I can agree. We can lobby. We can speak. We can say to government officials and voters, "If you are going to disobey Christ and excercise authority, then at least do the best disobedient activity possible. Return evil for evil. Steal from those who steal and oppress." What I am opposed to is active participation in such a system. We can tell people who are bent on ruling to use this illegitimate power in the good way, but we can't use the illegitimate power ourselves. We are narrowly limitted to the much more powerful life of submission. One day Christ's submission (and ours) will be seen for what it is. One day he will come as a lion.

Brandon: There is illegitimate coercion and there is legitimate coercion.  It IS clear that Jesus did not use the illegitimate kind.  It is clear that he spoke and taught against it and lived it.  But it is NOT equally clear that the he DID NOT used legitimate power as well.

Zach: Ok, but this is not the accepted meaning of "powerlessness." A powerless person does not "voluntarily subordinate" his or herself to anyone. He or she does not have the ability or power to do so. Anyone who does anything voluntarily is excersising power. They cannot be powerless. They may be self-controlled or humble or meek or sacrificial, but not powerless. The idea that Christlike submission is powerless only confuses the issue and makes it easier to dismiss Jesus' teachings.

Brandon: I realize the “powerless” issue here.  Submission and non-violence of the Gandi- Martin Luther King-humble and meek kind is a very powerful thing.  But this is also a voluntary thing in which a person exercises their will to not use power (even controllably) but by powerless this is what I’m talking about.  To not use dominating, manipulating and possibly destructive force.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/5/2006 12:39:57 PM (GMT-5)

Well, I think I see where a good part of our disagreements arise from and I knew that at some point that the issue of “the nature of the powers” would have to be addressed. 

I’ll refrain from responding to this for a bit, other than to say that you, seem to see the Powers primarily in political terms--as governing powers and authorities in terms of human or personal agency:

No, he both confronts and submits to the powers out of obedience to the Father. Remember, EVERY power and authority is instituted by God. Even the Romans. Even Hitler. Even Clinton. Even Cheney.

And

If we are imagining sin and death as substantial entities, then it's ok to use language of coercion in that specific context. And I could even go for coercion over demonic powers. But if we are speaking of the exousia of Romans 13 - the governing powers and authoirities - then it is not coercion. We must submit to what God has established, must we not?

And there are other references, but I don’t need to copy everyone of them.

Frankly, I don’t disagree with the fact that Jesus submitted himself to the human government of Rome.  But I don’t interpret the Powers primarily this way and so it becomes a tricky enterprise as to how they exert their influence.  Needless to say, I’ll put that to the side for a second.

Zach: I understand the distinction you are drawing. So does Jesus in Luke 22:25. He then forbids both kinds. Even coercion with good intentions is disobedience to Jesus.

Brandon:  I see absolutely nothing wrong with interpreting this from the first type of coercion that I spoke of.  Benefiting from violent, domination and manipulation in which it could be said that Christ was a selfish despot disrespectful of human dignity. 

Zach: I don't remember Yoder saying anything about accepting powerlessness. It's been a while since I've read him. But I'm not going to believe he says that until I read it from him himself. Maybe he does. Regardless, I don't say it. Whenever you argue against "accepting powerlessness," you are arguing to thin air. I do not condone the acceptance of powerlessness.

Brandon:  If Christ forsook “brute power,” “violent lordship,” “domination,” and “manipulation” would this not count as DEFEAT FROM ANY OTHER PERSPECTIVE?  This is what I mean by him “accepting powerlessness.” On the one hand you are saying that Christ forsook “brute power,” “violent lordship,” “domination,” “manipulation” and that you see a DIFFERENCE that I’m drawing between this type of coercion in which Jesus would be seen as a selfish-despot and the non-violent, non-manipulating, non-dominating unselfish despot (power and authority) which respects human dignity.  If Christ forsook the first kind which by all accounts would spell defeat, would that not ESSENTIALLY BE POWERLESSNESS?

Christ forsook the” violent destructive-dominating-manipulation in which one benefits from another—just because I’m the head honcho” in which there is disrespect for human dignity kind of coercion of which you admit that you see the difference from non-violent, non-destructive systemic manipulation when the system is running properly i.e. laws and policies that are formulated in order to “coerce” humans to behave in certain ways.

So, when I say that Greg says that governments are “inherently evil” I’m saying that patterns of domination and manipulation that PRESENTLY CHARACTERIZE political activity (the negative kind) are ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES of an order introduced into creation as a result of sin i.e think of the library example in which the system exist for itself and those who "run" it, while objectifying those who are suppose to benefit.  With such an understanding, ANY TYPE of coercion is seen as evil simply because it is coercive (see my example below).  So even if persons benefit from this coercion or even if political structures expedite positive patterns of sociality, that doesn’t matter.  It is still seen as evil simply because it is coercive.  And sorry, that doesn’t gel with me theologically or politically or even commonsensically ß-that is not a word. 

Zach: Neither do I. Only (for the purposes of this discussion) coercive power and authority. This is a very common criticism of Christian pacifists/anarchists. First, we assume that to be effective we must be coercive sometimes. Then, we assume that Jesus' instructions and commands should be ignored when they might not be effective in what we assume are his ultimate goals. After making these assumptions the pacifist/anarchist position is nonsense. Either it must call for "powerlessness" or "dismantling of the powers." Since we have already ruled out non-coercive power, we can't imagine how a Christian could be faithful and still submit to evil. It's hard to get around the fact that Jesus did this, so we say that he is a one time thing. We ignore or spiritualize anything that has to do with suffering, taking up a cross, following Jesus, walking like Jesus, being in Christ... There is a third option between doing nothing and fighting back (from the inside or the outside). There is the way of the cross.

Brandon:  See, I can’t say that you are describing my position very well.  You are saying that I’m ignoring Jesus instructions and commands when it suits me to do so or I ignore them when they are not effective.  But do you seriously believe that is WHY I hold to the position I do?  You can have a coercive power that is of a very HUMANIZING kind (personally I don’t like the reduction of calling something that is very humanizing as merely beneficial).  It is not simply that we are created for sociality, but that we are created for sociality in certain ways.  That is, views about what is best for human beings presuppose an a priori opinion as to the POINT of those structures.

And this is the thing.  When I say that you are REDUCING this to something that is beneficial, under your interpretation of what Jesus said in Luke 22:25, who benefits?  The rulers.  Under my interpretation of that scripture, those who benefit are the rulers as well.  BUT when you take the second kind of “coercion” that I spoke about above, this is not merely a question of who benefits (which in this case it would be society) but a question of humanization, which is sooo much more larger.  What also plays into this as I said above, is the question of the POINT of political structures and that it is not simply that we are social creatures but that we are social creatures in certain WAYS.  I’m afraid that, not only is it impossible to have a TOTAL de-politicization of all human relationships (even if there had been no sin we would still have needed some form of order i.e. there is nothing inherently sinful about running a red light, but we would still need a political body to decide how to organize transportation, which would ultimately mean the manipulation and coercion of others), but that without a politicization of relationships things would become pretty chaotic which would probably be best understood against the backdrop of dominion and task and glorification of God.

Zach: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted." - Romans 13. So did Jesus NOT submit himself to what God established? Surely not. Jesus obeyed his Father, right? There is NO authority except that which God has established.

Brandon:  Again, I’m not thinking of “principalities and powers” primarily and particularly in terms of government and human agency.  As a matter of fact I wouldn’t even restrict the discussion to politics per se (which is how these discussions usually go) but to all areas of life, technology, arts, ethic pursuits, etc.

Zach: There you did it again. You treat "coercion" and "power" as synonyms. I am NOT saying that "he DID NOT used legitimate power as well." I AM saying that he did not use coercive power against other human beings. He used the towel, bread, fish, water, words, signs, rebuke, love, and the cross. Power can be non-coercive. The most powerful power is.

Brandon: I realize that there is a difference between “coercion” and “power,” and I realize that Jesus submitted to the earthly ruling authorities (as a visible event).  I realize that he did not use violence or brute power, but again, when we speak of the “Powers” it is not at all clear as to what these Powers are, how many of them exist or where the start and finish of the Powers is--that is the extent of their influence.  Not all power is coercive but all coercion is the use of power.  And if we take our cue from how Jesus dealt with the powers, then we cannot say that he never used coercive force (or as they say around here, “unilateral power”).

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/7/2006 8:36:33 AM (GMT-5)

Zach: I'm only speaking for myself here, but I think we should act in all ways according to our religious allegiances. I choose not to vote because of my religious allegiance. If I did vote, it would be out of my religious allegiance. It is just my belief that Christians are to follow Christ in acting the servant rather than the ruler.

VFG: What I meant by "religious allegiance" were things such as the "Religious Right" or specifically forming allegiances with any political party regardless of who they choose to be their candidate. I think what you're talking about is "religious conviction". But that's neither here nor there. I understand what you meant, and I hope you understand my point.

Zach: The only example that I am aware of where God delegates coercive authority is the Israelite monarchy. He only did this with the (supposed) consent of the people. The American government does not have the consent of the people it rules. God also told the people that their government was idolatrous. They chose a king, when God was already their king. God is still king.

VFG: It's the only explicit example from the Bible, but it doesn't mean that if it's not in the Bible, God didn't delegate authority to this or that person. God indeed could have established and even delegated authority to governments not listed in the Bible.

Zach: Jesus did not use the whip on people. The Greek is very clear. Jesus may very well have known that it was his time to "take up his cross," but he also commands every single one who would be his disciple to take up his or her cross too. The cross is not just for Jesus. He said so himself.

VFG: He made a scourge (phragellion) which was a tool/whip typically used for punishment. The Greek word used was "eckballoo" which was to cast someone out, throw out, jettison, "to cause to go out or leave, often, but not always, involving force". So sure, it's possible that Jesus didn't actually hit anyone with the whip, but all things considered, it was a likely occurance. So how does the Greek in John 2:15 make it clear that Jesus did not use the whip on people?

Regarding taking up the cross and following Jesus, he was clearly saying to essentially "be prepared to endure the hardship, trials, and humiliation for my sake". But linking the two passages together as if the situation in the Garden of Gesthemane was a model Jesus commanded that we should explicitly follow is still a stretch. They are two separate contexts.

Zach: I'm not saying it is or is not ours in the first place. I'm just saying that whoever's it is, government officials take money that is not theirs from unwilling people. That is theft. God has established every government. He has not condoned every activity they might do.

VFG: If you rent an apartment, aren't we expected to pay what's due for living there? Why can't the government do the same? Just wondering, how do you interpret the passage pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's, pay unto God what is God's?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/9/2006 2:46:15 PM (GMT-5)

Zach:  Jesus juxtaposes service and the excerise of authority. He compares the ruler to the one who serves, and he says that "I am among you as one who serves." He takes the teaching all the way from table manners to the politics of the day. Jesus is not teaching his disciples HOW to treat the people who serve at the table. He is teaching them to BE the people who serve at the table. This teaching is set parallel to teaching about politics. Your idea, that this teaches against cronyism, has nothing to do with the context. Jesus teaches them to be servants at the table. He teaches them to be servants among themselves. Jesus had every right to be treated as a king, but he chose to act like a household slave. And we have been placed "in Christ." We are to "walk as he walked."

Brandon:  Wait.  I would agree with you that he is teaching them to be servers and I would agree with you that this is not about cronyism-I don’t think I was saying that.  I was saying that IF this scholar’s interpretation is correct, this is what Jesus was referring too.  However, I would not rule out cronyism entirely from the text.  Jesus is undermining a “world order” and in doing so, he tells them that they are not to be status/power seekers but to be servers.  Status/power seekers were those who wanted to consider themselves of great importance and this is how they did it.  The thing is, I align myself more with the second interpretation.  Were there status/power seekers?  Yes.  How did they do that?  Beneficence.  But Jesus says, that they REALLY aren’t benefactors because they don’t live up to the ideal, not so much because they are providing favors or showing beneficence, but because they desire to be great in this worldly way.  The point is, is that the disciples want to be considered important and Jesus ultimately undermines this by his own death.

This is a far cry from that kind of authority that seeks to bring about an ordering of society in the way that I described above with both a library system and a transportation system.  As a matter of fact, it could be argued (as I have tried to do) that the system is there TO SERVE.  The ordering of society for service is a part of the creation order.  But status/power seeking is a perversion of this. 

Zach: The teaching took place in the context of the disciples asking for position in Jesus' government. For Jesus to turn the conversation from WHO is great in the Kingdom to HOW one can be great in the Kingdom, is completely natural. It is exactly the kind of thing Jesus does.

Brandon:  Yes.  I don’t have a problem with the flow from the disciples seeking greatness in the Kingdom to Jesus’ government.  And I would say that there are implications that arise from this for politics today. But the point is not that there is not a natural flow of Jesus juxtaposing two Kingdoms here, the point is that it goes against the flow of the text to say that Jesus is telling them to not be status/power seekers and telling them to serve and then in turn to say, “What this means is that governmental coercion on all levels is evil.  Don’t serve in government.”  No, Jesus is saying that they are not to be status/power seekers and that His Kingdom followers are not to be characterized by imitating status/power seeking.  Not, “The essential properties of government is coercion in the negative sense so you must never become politicians.”  The status/power seeking, manipulation and domination in the negative sense is a perversion of that power and authority that is a part of the creation order.  Jesus is not calling for us to not be office holders, but rather even those who would serve in the capacity of politician must exemplify non-status/power seeking in public office.  Again.  I’m all for what Jesus is saying here.  And I would assume that this is one area that we can agree on.  But what is not so clear is that we are not to seek public office.

Zach: Well, at the very least, it is applicable to those Gentiles who rule over others and call themselves benefactors. And even in Rome, cronyism was not something that people praised themselves for.

Brandon:  You know?  It would be nice if Jesus came out, in of all passages and told us that we are not to be in politics.  And that this is not only for them but for us.  For future generations.  I mean that would settle it.  We wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But He didn’t.  And the question is one of coercive power.  Is all coercive power evil?  Is the manipulation and domination and violent lordship that characterizes present day political realities an essential characteristic of politics or is it a perversion of the created order?  I say that its a perversion.  I also, say that though it is perverted, then we can make changes, but those changes will not come simply from speaking from “without” it as that will critically distance oneself from the political system and thereby continue the perversion. 

I don’t blame guys like Yoder and Wallis and Sider for pointing out negative manipulation and domination.  We need that.  We need for guys like yourself with that Yoder type of conviction to point out that if we are going to be involved in politics?  That we must walk in a better way.  We need to be shaped and molded and even corrected if need be BY that perspective. 

Zach: And as I have said, I completely agree. As to your employment, "whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." It's up to you to decide if you are walking as Jesus did. Jesus gave sacrificially to those who took from him.

Brandon:  No, you do not completely agree.  Earlier it was stated,

“Brandon: So even if persons benefit from this coercion or even if political structures expedite positive patterns of sociality, that doesn’t matter. It is still seen as evil simply because it is coercive.

Zach: Exactly. 

NOW we said:

Brandon: But as my point has been, not all power or coercion is inherently evil.

Zach: And as I have said, I completely agree. As to your employment, "whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." It's up to you to decide if you are walking as Jesus did. Jesus gave sacrificially to those who took from him.

Which is it?  Is all coercive power evil or not?  I say it isn’t.

Also, by what you are saying, the non-evil coercive power that I use is not the way of the cross.  So I don’t know how you would say that it is not evil.  Sure it’s up to me to walk as Jesus did, but the question is, “What did Jesus say?” and “Am I walking in it?”  According to you, in my employment I am not following the way of the cross because on some level I have to be coercive.

Zach: Coercion implies at least two free otherwise free agents. I am obviously not opposed to the "coercion" of moving an inanimate object. All I am saying is that God (and his followers) can be powerful without being coercive (to a sentient, conscious homo-sapiens with the capacity to make decisions). I am not saying that God (or his followers) cannot coerce evil spirits, inanimate objects, or the formless void of creation. I'm even fine with coercion of "evil systems" so long as that coercion does not amount to the coercion of sentient, conscious homo-sapiens with the capacity to make decisions. I know it can be tricky, but we must distinguish president Cheney from the devil. The decision-making human beings who occupy government office participate in a system that is largely (and, in another sense, essentially) opposed to the Kingdom of God. Despite this, they are not the devil. Not literally.

Brandon:  Well, OK now…let’s talk about this.  How ‘bout you tell me the difference between the Powers and the governments and evil systems and what not.  How many of them exist and where the start and finish of the Powers is--that is the extent of their influence.  Not trying to sound facetious here.  I just think it would help clear some things up to talk about this.  What?  How?  Where?  When?

Also, when you say, “…a system that is largely (and, in another sense, essentially) opposed to the Kingdom of God.”  I can’t help but reiterate what I said earlier about government being inherently evil.  What part is evil and what part is not?  And what do you mean by “system?”  Are you speaking primarily of government or something else?  If you are speaking about primarily about government, why? 

Zach: You said, "And sorry, that doesn’t gel with me theologically or politically or even commonsensically." That is what I was responding to. It is something that I would not say. Whether or not an idea "gels" with my previously held theological or political beliefs should not have any bearing how I judge the idea. I believe that all presuppositions should be open to question (even this one).

Brandon:  I went over this in my mind.  I’m not going to get into tit-for-tat on this.  Let’s just say we are in agree on this.

Zach: It assumes nothing of the sort. You replaced the standard for judgement of pacificism. We were talking about what Jesus teaches, and then you moved to what is most "humanizing". I believe that the two are the same, but I also believe that Jesus is to be obeyed above any idea of what it means to be humanizing. Maybe you are right about my position being less humanizing. But that only tangentially has anything to do with whether or not Jesus taught it. It is entirely possible that Jesus held to a different anthropology than you or me.

Brandon:  You were assuming that I was being convenient with what Jesus said.  I agree that we should not be taking what is the most humanizing and replacing it with what Jesus said.  But the assumption here is that we know Jesus’ thinking on governmental participation.  Again, it would be nice if Jesus just came out with it, but he didn’t.  Did he tell us to be servants?  Yes.  Did he undermine a world order by this radical call?  Yes.  Are we to avoid status/power seeking?  Yes.  Does this mean that we are status/power seekers and thereby participating in the Kingdoms of this world because we use any amount of coercion?  No.  Is all coercion a manifestation of worldly kingdoms?  No.  Is it a part of the creation order?  Yes.  Are there perversions of the created order?  Yes.  What are those, domination and manipulation.

Brandon: Personally, I find it to be somewhat of an insult to tell us what our motives are on this.

Zach: When did I do that?

Brandon:  When you said that I ignored Jesus teaching.  Dude, this is just serious disagreement over WHAT he taught.

Zach:  Let me get this straight. Human relations are political because they are social in certain ways. I agree. But what "certain ways" are you talking about? If you mean "Human relations are political because they are coercive," then no. Human relations are not necessarily coercive. Certainly human relations are political. I am not trying to de-politicize them. Politics does not necessarily involve coercion.

Brandon:  Yes.  I’m not attempting to say that all human relationships are necessarily coercive.  Here is what I mean by saying, “at the base.”  There are some who have argued that when you get large numbers of evil people (otherwise known as a society) working at cross purposes, then government and politics are essentially matters of coercion.  So in the Garden we didn’t need government because this was not the case.  Government is only needed when sinful men need to be restrained.  And at the point of men being sinful, we get ideas of master, servant and ruler.  This is a negative or remedial function, one of which is primarily coercive.

Then there is the more positive function or the ordering of society which would contribute to human life even if sin had not entered into the picture.  jefscott mention saving children from hurting themselves.  And yes, it is this and this could possibly fall into the negative category, but I’m also thinking of something more along the lines of contributing to positive patterns of sociality in which there would be some sort of hierarchy, authority and power but it would not be rooted in the post-fall phenomenon but rather in the created order.  This is what I mean by human relationships being political.  In other words we should draw the distinction between engaging in actions that have the EFFECT of coercing others and acting out of a desire to coerce and dominate.

Truth be told, this brings up questions with regard not only to the political but to familial and ecclesiastical.  Church discipline and child-rearing may pose to us problematic situations in which coercion and even violence is unavoidable.  The other thing is that it is not really clear that one would avoid responsibility for coercion and domination when you refuse to act.  Refusing to act—especially if there is evidence that our actions will succeed can be a form of “managing the affairs of others.”  That is, inaction can be as brutal as action.  Either way, Yoder I think is right when he tells us not to manage God’s world for him, but there are proper and improper ways of doing this and we ought not to attempt to “make things happen” which ought NOT to happen in effect harboring desires to coerce and dominate.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/12/2006 4:52:37 PM (GMT-5)

Zach: Ok. "This worldly way." What is "this worldly way?" It is "lording over" and "calling themselves benefactors." It is the opposite of Christlike servanthood.

Brandon:  I went to WH’s website and Greg’s book was advertised there with comments below saying that it was based on his 2004 series.  I downloaded Greg’s sermon’s on the topic and have only listened to the first one so far.  There, as well as in his book and in this discussion is a categorization mistake. 

All of you want to assume that ALL forms of coercion are worldly.  I admit as you would no doubt admit that there is some coercion that is DEFINITELY worldly.  What we don’t agree on is that they are ALL worldly.  I would argue that what is considered worldly by you, but is not by me, is what is built into the creation order.  That even if sin had not entered into the picture we would still have had a need for it.  That is, a political and social ordering are an important part of the original unfallen creation.  I also hold that this ordering can be of SERVICE expediting patterns of sociality in which we ultimately reflect back the image of God. 

So it is a far cry from saying that my being a bus driver and the status/power seeker are the same thing.

Zach: I'm fine with the library system and the transportation system so long as they "walk as he walked." A Christian can guiltlessly serve in both systems. But their goal of service does not justify "lording over" behavior.

Brandon:  I agree with you.  But what we are talking about is the NATURE of the walk.  You realize that some will have to be “manipulated and “controlled” and thereby “coerced” under both systems.  Yet if politics is to serve it will not do so in a selfish-despotic sort of way.  What you have been saying is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to “walk as he walked” simply because there is a political and social ordering.  There is a difference between “lording over” and “dominion” which is what I keep trying to draw out.  Just as a little side bar, in Canada governmental institutions used to be called, “ministries” (some still retained that formalization) i.e. the “Ministry of Transportation.” 

Zach: I, like you, disagree with anyone who puts these words in Jesus' mouth. I would owever say that IF government service requires anti-Christlike behavior (such as forcing my will on someone else even with the best of intentions), THEN that particular position is not allowed for a Christian. Practically speaking, this is the case when dealing with legislative and executive bodies. These are people who think it is their job to act as lords. They act as though other people are theirs to command. However, gentle and benevolent their lordship is, Jesus commanded servanthood. The servant takes orders. The lord gives orders.

Brandon:  This is not a question of “putting words in Jesus mouth.”  It is simply the drawing out of the implication that if we interpret Jesus in the way that you are saying then it follows that Jesus is ESSENTIALLY saying not to become politicians because in doing so they will have to use coercive power to maintain order.

Again, if politics is to serve, then I cannot help but seeing that there will be some sort of manipulation or coercion of people though not in a selfish despotic sort of way.  For example, it is not clear to me from the Garden of Eden, that a diversity of people would not have eventually inhabited the earth.  Thus we would have different cultures and cultural richness from institutional life (including non-political or non-governmental institutions) to a whole array of cultural expressions.  In other words there would be this differentiation of human institutions and associations.  Upon this differentiation, questions about how this diversity would properly interrelate would require answering.  So how do we respond?  Well, the “open space of free societies” or “domain” or “intersection”--what is commonly referred to as “the public square” is the same for all of them. This “space” though is made possible by law-making and law-enforcing governments whose responsibilities are to do justice to all of them.  For example, each non-governmental association, church, sports clubs, family, etc, etc, etc, is to be identified, distinguished, and protected by government through public law in order to be able to fulfill their own responsibilities. 

Little sidebar:  It is at this point along my journey of thinking through some of these issues that I moved away from a more “Conservative” understanding of government whose mantra is, “less government.”  I remember Phyllis Schlafly of the conservative organization, Eagle Forum on CNN one time saying how much we need less governmental intrusion into our lives and the liberal host saying something along the lines, “Do we need government for traffic lights?” his point being that we need government.  For me, it is no longer the question of whether we need more (liberal) or less (conservative) government but what is government’s role in our lives?  Where do their powers begin and where do they end.  What are their responsibilities?  End of side bar.

Having said that, a healthy society and healthy globe can be realized only by way of proper differentiation, integration, and fulfillment of a diverse range of institutions and relationships which-REQUIRE ROOM-A COMMON PUBLIC SPACE in which justice is done to all.  This just treatment is the responsibility of public-legal governance.  If we distance ourselves from this process, I’m afraid we contribute to a part of the mess.  This, by the way is a far cry from “taking America back for God.”

Zach: But certain public offices are by their nature places of rule. Maybe our difference is that you are opposed to status/power-seeking. I think that being powerful and having high status are good things. The person who uses coercion is weak and of low status in the Kingdom of God. "whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant" "the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" Jesus never taught that we are not to seek power or high status.

Brandon:  Yes, by their nature, governments rule.  I’m not opposed to status/power seeking in the sense that someone wants to participate and SERVE in government and honestly want to see justice prevail.  What I don’t go for are those status/power seekers who seek power to manipulate and dominate that say, “Look at me!  Look at me!” but don’t have the wherewithal to back up what real servant-hood is about.  So, I’m not against status/power per se.  Again, my point here is that one can serve in the capacity of a politician.

Zach: I think that we should be in politics. noncoercively.

Brandon:  I hate to sound like a broken record with the needle skipping.  So I’m not going to.

Zach:  When you said "It is still seen as evil simply because it is coercive," I though it was obvious that we were limitting this discussion to human beings. I then found out that this was not clear. So when you said "not all power or coercion is inherently evil," I agreed because coercion against non-human entities might not be evil. So just let me know: are we taking about decison-making, conscious, sentient humans? If we are, then I say coercion is always evil. If not, then I say coercion might be appropriate.

Brandon:  Thanks for the clarity.  So you know where I’m at with this with regard to humans.  We disagree on that (I’m not sure it is even accurate to say that God does not use coercive measures as Dwayne has argued on these boards).  I can’t really say where we’d be in agreement with regard to non-human entities.  Me wonders why you would have no problem with THESE freewill entities.  Regardless, until we are clear on the “Powers” I can’t say that we’d be in much agreement there as well part of which is that I don’t see the “Powers” as necessarily conscious sentient beings.

Zach: I do NOT say that. Your employment does not require you to be coercive (as far as I know).

Brandon:  But it does required me to allow people on the bus, to make sure riders let the disabled have certain seating, to maintain order, to make sure arms and heads are inside instead of sticking out the window, etc.  This is very much manipulative and dominating activity.  Actually, just by my status alone, I have this kinda power.  Anyway, I rule my bus with an iron fist.  And I love it!  ;)

Zach: I have no interest in distinguishing between "The Powers" and human governments. But I can distinguish between humans and non-humans (or at least I think I can). All I'm saying is when interacting with conscious, sentient, human, decision-makers, we should not be coercive.

Brandon:  But this is a VERY important question.  Because even Paul, as far as I’m concerned does not view the powers necessarily as sentient beings.  Paul’s view of the “Powers” was a mixture of the Old Testament legacy and the Graeco-Roman concept of the State—his own context.  There were “spiritual powers” or “forces” that “stand behind” and “influence” political life (in addition to other areas of human society), but his cosmology according to some scholars was broadly Graeco-Roman though he rejected much of the religious content-i.e. he reinterprets the “daimones” in the light of the Old Testament angelological tradition.  Daimones in the GR context were astral or cosmic powers.  Regardless, in his thinking Paul went beyond the OT and PARTIALLY DEPERSONALIZED the “Powers” such that most scholars seem to concur with little disagreement on this point.  One scholar says, “angels” and “angel powers” and describes them as “almost personified powers.”

Now, if this is the case, we cannot go so far as to say that politicians are demon-possessed or regularly communing with spirits as if there is some sort of direct supernatural intervention i.e. your saying that there is a difference between Cheney and the devil.  But this doesn’t tell us how the Powers influence.

The influence of the Powers is such that there is an almost “oneness” between the spirit-world and human-decision making in which they are seen to demonstrate their influence in “the structures of earthly existence.”  The Powers were originally created as “instruments” of God’s love for his creation—the “weight-bearing substratum of the world” intended by God to serve to “bind men fast in His fellowship.”  But though they are now fallen “behaving as though they were the ultimate ground of being, they continue to “undergird human life and society and preserve them from chaos.”

Thus, we could think of the Powers as various forces, spheres and patterns of our lives which present themselves as possible objects of idolatry.   Men, being the fallen creatures they are, turn their allegiance to various dimensions of creation in order to find substitute objects of trust i.e. moral code, political ideology, nation or race, sexual enjoyment, humanitarian pursuits and as I stated before religious commitment.  This is more or less the Pauline conception of the “Powers.”  They are the DOMAINS when we think of the Powers as having to do with idolatry.

Now, these things as I stated, “undergird human life and society and preserve them from chaos.”  That is they could serve as an AID IN ORDERING HUMAN EXISTENCE i.e. national or racial groups are not always “bad.”  We need these as reference points to help us regulate our pursuits and decision-making.  Without them, what?  Life would be chaotic.  Properly understood they can be the Lord’s servant aiding us in loving both God and neighbour.  But with sin in the picture, our devotion to those things become itself an instrument of rebellion.  And since these are not morally or ontologically ultimate and we give them our ultimate alligence?  We are dealing with false gods in which human life becomes distorted in its order and direction.  The Powers become despotic lords over us.  What was intended to bring harmony and partnership?  Now serve as forces of alienation and finally leads us to ultimate disintegration.  Come to think of it, this radical undermining of the world order in the Lk 22 passage is to be seen as coming against the Powers of status/power seeking and thus something that would be a despotic overlord causing alienation.

Now, among other things, it is not clear when discussing the powers, how we would distinguish one from another.  For example if we take Hitler’s Germany and the power of Volk, race and state on men, it is not clear if we should understand there to be three Powers that were at work or if there was ONE SINGLE POWER using three factors?  And that’s the thing.  It may not be possible to distinguish these things but unless we have some ontological principles, the Powers will continue to be vague as well as remain unhelpful as an instrument of Christian discernment at crucial points for participation in life’s spheres.

Though there are passages that contain personification of the powers, other passages, Romans 8:38-39 (“death,” “height,” and “depth”) appear to be the opposite of this personification.  And so we need to ask about what Paul was speaking of here.  Was he speaking of distinct entities which operate as causal factors with respect to human affairs and if he did, are we required to posit the existence of such entities.

If we want to understand Paul, we need clarity about that which he spoke and then sort out ways in which it will be applicable for today.  If what Paul said was true and helpful we need to ask HOW it was true and helpful.  Was he insisting on correctness of key elements of his widely accepted cosmology of his day or was he merely employing the language of this cosmology as figures of speech?  Is this personification or is it metaphor?  Spiritual agents or “reified” social attitudes and forces?

Very important questions Zach.

Zach: Coercion against sentient, conscious, human decision-makers (lets call them SCHDMs) is opposed to the teaching and life of Jesus. Whatever a human government, system, or person does that is coercive against SCHDMs is evil. At this point, I was speaking primarily about government. I am doing so because this is a discussion about a book titled THe Myth of a Christian Nation. I don't think that's the kind of answer you were looking for, but I don't know how else to answer.

Brandon:  OK.  See above.  This is slightly reductionistic.

Zach: What am I to assume when you say you don't believe something because it doesn't gel with your theology?

Brandon:  That maybe there is more to the biblical drama than what Jesus said.  That we shouldn’t proof-text our positions.  That is that we shouldn’t use texts about what we think Jesus might have said, never mind, MEANT, as that is sometimes next to impossible to nail down.  We need to look at ALL of scripture, Creation, Fall, Redemption and Renewal, “Cross and Crown,”  “Lamb and Lion” to see what the Lord would require of us.

Zach: This is a rock-solid case against an argument I have never given. I am in favor of seeking status and power. Apparently the New Testament is too. Jesus teaches how to be great. Paul teaches how to be strong. Power is good. Wasting power/coercion is bad. God himself is described as Almighty. Jesus "grew and became strong." "Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always." Of course it is wrong to be selfish. We should not use power for selfish reasons, but neither should we use it to coerce SCHDMs. In the Luke 22 passage, Jesus does not teach how to be a good ruler. He teaches the disciples not to be rulers but servants instead. "Christian ruler" is an oxymoron. A Christian is a servant and not a ruler by definition (at least until Jesus returns).

Brandon:  I believe I responded to this above.

Zach: I didn't say you ignored his teaching. What you did was change the subject to your idea of humanizing and gelling with your theology. When you interpret Jesus in terms of your idea of humanizing or your personal theology, then it is no longer a matter of what he taught. You can't say that I'm wrong to interpret Jesus a certain way because it doesn't fit with your theology or it doesn't fit with some idea of what is humanizing. This is to put the cart before the horse. Now I know you didn't say these things explicitly, but why were they even brought up? If this is a serious disagreement over what Jesus taught, then what do our personal theologies or definitions of humanizing have to do with anything?

Brandon:  When you said that I was redefining Jesus to suit my pleasure on the basis of your assumption that I am saying that what he said doesn’t gel with my theology or that I’m using the humanizing idea to make Jesus words conform to what I want them to say, ESSENTIALLY you are saying I’m ignoring his teaching. 

I don’t want to go over that whole argument again.  Either way, I’m not trying to conform what Jesus said to my theology or my views of humanization are influencing this.  We have gone over the Luke 22 text and I don’t see that this is speaking about humanization.  It isn’t.  I’m simply saying that I disagree with your understanding that “benefactors” would include humanization.

Zach: There is legitimate negative/remedial coercion. That doesn't mean it is legitimate for Christians.

Brandon:  This legitimate coercion is not worldly so Christians can participate in it.

Zach: But you said "Government is only needed when sinful men need to be restrained." Sin is not part of the created order.

Brandon:  No, I said, that is what some believe.  I’m of the belief that some level of manipulation and coercion would have been a part of the created order even if sin would have never entered into the picture.

Zach: I'm very willing to make the distinction. The distinction is very clear to me. Yet both actions are evil (for humans now). Both actions, when done by humans, are cases of humans claiming authority that is only God's to claim or delegate.

Brandon:  Again, I believe that God delegates this authority in the sense that it is a part of the created order.  But there is nothing inherently evil about my telling someone to move out of seating to allow for someone in a wheel-chair to sit in that position.

Zach: Unavoidable? Sure, violence will happen. But Christians can avoid committing violence. Likewise, coercion will happen, but we don't have to be the ones doing it.

Brandon:  There is a difference between rejecting those actions from a desire to control and manipulate people as some sort of selfish despot and the pursuing of political activity with a desire to promote justice couple with a genuine love and humility for both God and neighbor.

Zach: I am responsible for my free choices, not the free choices of anyone else. That's part of what makes them free. If responsibility is aquired through simply allowing something bad to happen, then God is the most evil being imaginable.

Brandon:  True dat.  But if you have the power to stop a train because it is going to kill someone who is tied up on the track or get someone who is tied up on the track out of harm’s way and you don’t?  Then guess what?  You have in a sense "managed affairs" and I hold you responsible.  And when it comes to politics and societies and not simply individuals?  This is all the more true.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/15/2006 11:38:00 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/15/2006 4:19:58 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/15/2006 10:11:39 PM (GMT-5)