 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Woodland Hills and the New York Times | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 8/2/2006 12:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok.
This is what I'm thinking. I'm going to simplify and centralize the message of the Cross and the Sword...
The main thing that Doc is trying to say is that our CENTRAL IDENTITY and CENTRAL ALLEGIANCE (both corporate and individual) should be to Jesus and the Reign of God. If this is genuinely the case, then we will do our best to be conformed to the image/likeness of Christ. This includes growing a character that "comes under" others in self-sacrificial, incarnational, vulnerable love and actively opposes sin, brokenness, and injustice using that "come under" spirit. We are to be the salt and light of the world. THIS is our main duty as Christians. THIS is unambiguous.
What's separate (and ambiguous) is how a Kingdom person is to interact with the fallen human structures in which said Kingdom person finds themselves. Should Christians be total pacifists? Should Christians more favor Republican policies or Democratic policies? Should Kingdom people work at places like MTV or Showtime? Should Christians be pro-life or pro-choice? Should Christians work in multinational corporations that cause multinational oppression? And MANY MORE questions like this could be asked.
Whenever ANYONE declares that any SPECIFIC way of a Kingdom person's interaction with the fallen human structures should be DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED with spreading the Kingdom of God, they are in line to fall into some kind of idolatry. It may be nationalistic. It may be economic. It may be legalistic. It may be moralistic. But it's ALL idolatry.
It's one thing to say that our faith should inform our daily actions. (No one is disagreeing with that. Especially not Greg) Obviously, the more that we conform our characters to that of Jesus, we WILL change the way we see and do things. But...it's another thing to equate certain specific WAYS of interacting with fallen human structure with Kingdom activity.
This is why the undergirding theological premise of Doc message is NOT inherently anti-conservative...nor is it necessarily some apolitical pietism. It's really not! Why are so many people NOT seeing this? Because of how Doc communicated his message, in the series AND in the book!
What happened is very simple, in my mind.
1) This message came in 2004 out of Doc's FRUSTRATION with the all the religious hoopla surrounding that election. Around this time, Doc was already frustrated with the history of the Church's behavior in the world. He had been reading about some of the "power over" atrocities that had been done in the name of Christ, ala Crusades and Inquisition. Now around 2002 or 2003 same time, he read a book that GREATLY impacted him: Captain America and the Crusade against Evil: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism.
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802828590/sr=8-1/qid=1154705004/ref=sr_1_1/102-9332736-2095340?ie=UTF8/
He mentions this book specifically in "Myth of a Christian Nation" Anyways...
Now, you've got a man frustrated with the Church in general...and THEN amazed and frustrated and the level of zealous nationalism that occurs in America...and THEN in 2004 we have the "moral values" thing going on where Doc is DELUGED in persons trying to use WHC as a political platform.
The outcome is NOT unpredictable...knowing Doc's personality!
Because it was predominantly evangelical conservatives that were badgering him about using church time for political means...AND they are the most highly profiled in the media, that's who he went after. Because he did this in major part out of FRUSTRATION with this situation and the Church's issues in general, the message came out to be easily interpreted as being PRIMARILY anti-conservative...when the essential message really isn't that.
2) Doc has Anabaptist roots. He had these even BEFORE the "Cross and the Sword" series. It's very apparent that this heritage has impacted Doc's ideas deeply about a Kingdom person's interaction with fallen human structures. But what he didn't make clear is that it is POSSIBLE to genuinely disagree with this perspective. There are even THEOLOGICAL reasons why one can disagree with some of Greg's perspective. (Recall some of my thoughts on the "Violence and the Kingdom of God" thread). At any rate, this is why his version sounds a LOT like apolitical pietism.
So...because of these things, when Doc conveyed his points, it allowed MUCH conducive space for his central point to be MISINTERPRETED because of the way that he communicated. Because of his passion against nationalistic zeal and the myth of redemptive violence...AND his Anabaptist leanings...his message sounds a LOT like it's anti-conservative and apolitical pietism. What grounds my thinking that what I'm saying is correct? Simply the fact that people like Chuck Colson keep falling into the SAME misinterpretations! This shows that the problem is undoubtedly a communication issue.
Let's be honest. Doc could have conveyed the MAIN SENSE of what he wanted to say without outrightly offending the sensibilities of conservatives...OR looking like he just wants to "opt out" of it all. THIS, my friends, is why I said what I said earlier in this thread. I really do believe that we didn't have to lose as many people as we did.
It was less-than-helpful communication, pure and simple.
Thoughts?
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 8/4/2006 10:49:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | From the New York Article...
The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?
After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
The bolded part was VERY, VERY true. And it's this "fed up-ness" that caused some of the communication problems!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | To me, this is a BIG example of how God works.
God uses broken cisterns to convey his MIND-BLOWING messages about existence. God works within and through the personality (and personality ISSUES) of God's human mouthpieces. And God has to deal with "loss in translation" MANY times!
This is ALSO why it's important for us to be DISCERNING about what God is saying through God's broken vessels. How much of this is HUMANNESS and how much of this is DIVINE WORD being conveyed through that humanness?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Good thoughts. I must confess that my interpretation and application has tended toward apolitical pietism. But, really, I hate the connotations of that label. It has ideas of a retreatist, non-engaged, individualized pursuit of 'holiness', however that's conceived. I'm opposed to all that as well. The Christian should be radically engaged in advancing the Kingdom, and the primary characteristic of this is profoundly self-sacrificing love for God and for others, as examplified by Christ.
And that's the thing. If a Christian does favor apolitical pietism, that's ok. What's wrong is when anyone (even Doc himself) implies that the core of Doc's idea NECESSITATES apolitical pietism or pacifism. That's simply not true.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/4/2006 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
And that's the thing. If a Christian does favor apolitical pietism, that's ok. What's wrong is when anyone (even Doc himself) implies that the core of Doc's idea NECESSITATES apolitical pietism or pacifism. That's simply not true.
I found myself enthusiastic and optimistic after the first “Sword and the Cross” sermon. By halfway through things took a turn. Reflecting, I see that I was hoping Greg was going to present a “third” way, some sort of apolitical pietism revival. I was disappointed to find out, for the most part, it was just more of the same with a left twist.
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Sparknheart:
I found myself enthusiastic and optimistic after the first “Sword and the Cross” sermon. By halfway through things took a turn. Reflecting, I see that I was hoping Greg was going to present a “third” way, some sort of apolitical pietism revival. I was disappointed to find out, for the most part, it was just more of the same with a left twist.
Very interesting. Simply because Doc IS significantly trying to go the apolitical pietism route. (Anyone who went to the Myth of a Christian Nation Q&A would have heard this clearly) Doc does PERSONALLY advocate what he has called "separatism" That's why he really likes the Anabaptists. He feels that "doing the Kingdom" is basically the Church looking for particular events of brokenness in the world and using it's (the Church's) resources to do incarnational ministry in that situation to bring healing. He'd rather do this than to play by the rules of conventional political discussion. He makes this clear that this is his view in the book.
The problem that I see is this: The core of Greg's separatist views don't NECESSITATE separatism. The very core of Doc's views is that we should center our IDENTITIES solely on Jesus and his Kingdom...and live from that identity. Now he ADDS to this. Doc tries to say that we need to do what we see Jesus doing...no more no less. We need to completely mimic Jesus...and what he did. And THIS is what leads to his separatism, in his mind. But just like I've told him personally, there are a NUMBER of problematic issues with that kind of idea. Moreover, it's patently unnecessary. The idea is not primarily trying to DO what Jesus did. The point is to, by the power of the Spirit, to BE the kind of person that Jesus was. Look at Scripture. The idea is to be conformed to the image of Christ...NOT to try to look exactly like Jesus PRAXEOLOGICALLY!!
There is a DIFFERENCE. A very important difference.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...could it be that what I'm saying above is why CONTINUAL DEPENDENCE UPON THE SPIRIT for EMPOWERMENT and DISCERNMENT is so important?
Just maybe?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah. Tom. Corey. Spark.
What do y'all think about this?
I'm thinking that what I'm saying makes sense. But I'd like to defer to see what y'all think.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 8/5/2006 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I would consider myself to be a pacifist in general, but I have issues. One would be Hitler, Rwanda, the Bosnian genocide. What is the response to that? This is the area that I am troubled by the most. I emailed Greg about the issue and it somewhat helped clear up the issue. Though I do not know what the response should be from Christians and Nations when faced with a individual who is bent on the destruction of others.
This is Docs response:
"As I note in the book, there's an important difference between saying something is "good" and "moral," on the one hand, and saying something is "kingdom", on the other hand. God uses the power-over nature of kingdoms of the world to keep sin in check and preserve law and order. God uses the power-under of the kingdom to advance the kingdom of God. What NATIONS should do and what CHRISTIANS should do are two different things." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/5/2006 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph, I think everyone of your points are right on the money. But I think what people recoil from is the idea that judgement is necessary to know when something other than passivism is appropriate. Some base this on the passage in the Sermon where Christ said don't resist evil.
I explain this for myself this way. Suppose I know my next door neighbor is molesting children in his home because he does it with his window open. Per a wooden literalism of the Sermon, I'm not to resist that man. But I don't see any difference in principle in me calling the goverment, since they will resist him. So if pacifism is true in principle because resisting evil is wrong, it would seem we should never enlist the help of anyone to resist any evil. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
So it seems more logical, to me, that the principle, as Christ and Paul argue, is to do benevolence (i.e., love). All else is commentary. So I get it down to a few guidelines.
1) we are never to avenge ourselves.
2) we are only to use force to protect victims when the government can't or won't do it.
3) even then, we are to use the minimal amount of force necessary to protect a victim.
Applying these kinds of principles will require judgement and wisdom. But I trust that God will not allow me to be tempted in a situation above which my wisdom is able.
With respect to being apolitical, then, I will be apolitical to the extent that I don't have the wisdom to know with reasonable certainty which political candidates will be a greater good or lessor evil. Unfortunately, politicians lie so much, end up governing so similarly, and do so much uncalculable harm that I, personally, have to be pretty apolitical. I just can't do the math to act politically with confidence. Paul says we are to be fully persuaded. I would think that would especially be true with respect to using or calling on force, which is what voting essentially is.
So even though I'm not a passivist, I agree with Doc that "What NATIONS should do and what CHRISTIANS should do are two different things." But I don't see how he can logically argue that NATIONS should do what they in fact do, given his principles.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/5/2006 12:53:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2006 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Let's be honest. Doc could have conveyed the MAIN SENSE of what he wanted to say without outrightly offending the sensibilities of conservatives...OR looking like he just wants to "opt out" of it all. THIS, my friends, is why I said what I said earlier in this thread. I really do believe that we didn't have to lose as many people as we did.
It's *NONE* of my business... But THAT was my first thought too.
Imho, HERE is a resource that was probably under-utilized:
Team work... Variety of gifts...
(Now, back to the lurking corner...)
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 8/9/2006 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Focus on the Familys' perspective on this topic...
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0041526.cfm | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/9/2006 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks everyone for all the links. Doc sure has stimulated some good discussions.
I can resonate with our good old friend DLW:
"The underlying issue for me is that it's not enough to prophetically state that our political priorities as Christians in the US are out of balance, one also needs to, as part of the ministry of reconciliation, reframe the issues to promote compromise and remove them as wedge issues that mainly sow acrimony."
| | Back to Top | | |
| 70 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:27 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 |
|
|