 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/21/2007 9:22 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Zach: I just wish the book made the case for Christian anarchism explicit rather than laying it between the lines.
Jeff: Zach, I'm currently listening to Greg's sermon, http://media.podcastingmanager.com/33098-360/Media/2004-05-30_Boyd_In-But-Not-of-the-World.mp3. In that sermon, Greg explicitly says there is nothing inconsistent with being a Christian and a police. He basically says a Christian police can legitimately kill someone so long as he kills consistently with the rules of his own government AND the God-given role of government. So I don't think he is an anarchist in any sense of the world. Check that sermon out and let me know if you think I'm misunderstanding him.
Then, again, maybe he's changed his mind since then. Does he say anything in the book that would contradict what I'm hearing him say in the sermon?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 3/21/2007 9:27:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/22/2007 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah. We agree. Nobody is saying anything about anarchy. Under Greg's view the world could carry out justice (as we "pressure" i.e. influence, etc). So, the Christian doesn't need to do this and would in fact be powering over others in worldly ways according to him--who cares if it's for good or bad. That would have certain ethics at play that say as long as it brings about something good it's OK. I've only listened to a portion of this sermon but I thought his point about people accusing him of communism or socialist etc was interesting. There are some very good things in those systems just as there is in democracy. Some not so good things either--as there is in democracy as well.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 3/22/2007 11:03:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/22/2007 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: The idea of a 'God-given' role for government logically has nothing to do with whether or not Christians should participate in it. You'd need another premise such as: "Christians should participate in every God-ordained institution."
Jeff: I think Greg is adding the premise: "Christians may participate in every God-ordained institution to the extent that they exercise that role within the bounds God has ordained for those institutions." I agree with him. I just think most government works outside those bounds. Working for positive change from within most organizations is very difficult. The authority structure within is hard to fight. Heck, it's even that way with many churches.
Zach: The New Testament says every authority is instituted by God, even the bad ones.
Jeff: Paul goes on to say that we owe the State taxes because of what good (i.e., deterring of evil and praise of good) they perform--however little it might be. He doesn't say we owe them taxes, or even obedience, for any other reason. That's why I see the State as analogous to a parent. Children are to obey parents for their own good--not just because. So I think minors can be obligated to disobey parents in some circumstances just like we must disobey the government in some cases.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 3/23/2007 5:55:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 3/31/2007 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I think Greg is adding the premise: "Christians may participate in every God-ordained institution to the extent that they exercise that role within the bounds God has ordained for those institutions." I agree with him. I just think most government works outside those bounds. Working for positive change from within most organizations is very difficult. The authority structure within is hard to fight. Heck, it's even that way with many churches.
Zach: There are some absurd repercussions to this (to my knowledge, heretofore unmentioned) premise: such as all Christians allowed participation in the divine institution of upholding the laws of physics or the animal institution of killing others whenever having the urge. I don't mention these as a digression. They show a very important way in which, I think you'd agree, this premise needs modifying. Christian participation in all God-ordained institutions must be limited not only by the role of the institution but also the role of the Christian. Of course no Christian should take it upon herself to manage the laws of physics or kill indiscriminately as is done in some God-ordained institutions. These roles are beyond the God-ordained scope of the Christian. "Power over" relationships, as Doc calls them, are beyond the scope of Christian activity. The Christian takes up his cross (not his sword) as follows Jesus. If anyone had a case for justified violence, Jesus did. There were plenty of people in Palestine being killed and oppressed.
Jeff: Paul goes on to say that we owe the State taxes because of what good (i.e., deterring of evil and praise of good) they perform--however little it might be. He doesn't say we owe them taxes, or even obedience, for any other reason. That's why I see the State as analogous to a parent. Children are to obey parents for their own good--not just because. So I think minors can be obligated to disobey parents in some circumstances just like we must disobey the government in some cases.
Zach: I agree. Every authority performs some good. And we owe every authority subordination (not necessarily obedience).
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/31/2007 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: There are some absurd repercussions to this (to my knowledge, heretofore unmentioned) premise: such as all Christians allowed participation in the divine institution of upholding the laws of physics or the animal institution of killing others whenever having the urge. I don't mention these as a digression. They show a very important way in which, I think you'd agree, this premise needs modifying. Christian participation in all God-ordained institutions must be limited not only by the role of the institution but also the role of the Christian. Of course no Christian should take it upon herself to manage the laws of physics or kill indiscriminately as is done in some God-ordained institutions. These roles are beyond the God-ordained scope of the Christian.
Jeff: You are absolutely right. I should modify the premise to something like this:
"A Christian may participate in political government to the extent that he/she exercises their particular role in that institution within the bounds God has ordained for that institution."
The justification for this would be precisely that of Paul, which seems to be that of Christ. By "all" authorities, Paul seems to mean all governments. For he later says, render to "all their" dues. By which he means custom and so forth. He also says earlier what their role is. So he doesn't seem to be talking about any other kind of authority than what we normally mean by that institution which is studied in political science/philosophy.
Zach: "Power over" relationships, as Doc calls them, are beyond the scope of Christian activity.
Jeff: I agree that Doc's articulation of his view seems incoherent. I think this is because he has created a distinction between "kingdom" good and "non-kingdom" good. I don't make that distinction. When Christ says do good unto all men, I assume he means do all kinds of good to all kinds of men to the extent that you have opportunity to do so. But this "extent" is determined by many a special duty, to my mind.
E.g., I have responsibilities to my dependent children that may limit what I can do for others, and so forth. IOW, I may have to spend time and resources on my children out of my obligation to them that necessarily limits my opportunities (time and resources) to do good unto others. Similarly, I have a duty to pay taxes to the State that necessarily limits the good I might have otherwise done with that same money.
The kind of giving that I think Christ is referring to by saying "give to him that asks and turn not away the borrower," is that giving which is not obligatory under some special duty. I think he is saying that we are to seek opportunities to do good beyond those goods we do as specific duties. These are goods that require the application of the golden rule. This is what the Pharisees would not do.
Christ said they would put burdens on others and not so much as put a finger of their own to lift them. They would divorce their wives for trivial reasons. They would not properly honor their parents. They worried about their own oxen insomuch as they were an economic asset, but cared not for the son of Abraham. They made vows knowing they would evade the fulfillment thereof by appealing to some traditional "out." Christ said that such deception is evil, pure and simple. This is why Christ said that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was woefully deficient.
Their interpretation of the Torah put their own self-interest over their neighbor's. They loved themselves instead of their neighbor rather than loving their neighbor as themselves. The rule that we are to love our neighbor as ourself means, to me, that the moral order is such that the highest good of our fellow men is consistent with and conducive to our own highest good.
So we are to put ourselves in our neighbor's shoes and ask our selves, "Would I see it as my highest good for my neighbor to do thus and such for me?" If our honest answer is "yes," we should do it for our neighbor, even if it costs us in the short run, knowing God will work it out to our good in the next life, if necessary. This rule applies to those who ask and those who would borrow. The Pharisees would not apply such a rule. They always sought an "out" so they could maximize their own self-interest in this life.
Zach: The Christian takes up his cross (not his sword) as follows Jesus. If anyone had a case for justified violence, Jesus did. There were plenty of people in Palestine being killed and oppressed.
Jeff: I take it, from Paul's argument, that subjection to the state is a good because the absence of the state would be a worse state of affairs. Evil would not be deterred and would, therefore, increase like leaven. So even though governments do a great deal of harm (as do doctors and parents), statistically speaking, they restrain the furtherance of evil somewhat--even in their fallen mode of operandi.
Granted, God intends governments and parents to do only good. But it's harder to wield much positive influence in the State than it is as a parent because of all the other folks you're having to work with and against in the State. This is why I agree with Paul's assessment of the government but still find it improbable that a Christian could influence it for good to any significant extent.
So I think we will be more positive in our influence as individuals or as a groups of believers. And I think this is why Christ's teaching concerned these. I don't think he was saying that it was intrinsically wrong to be a Roman soldier. He would, rather, agree with John that a soldier should behave in a specific way. But if that "way" will not be tolerated in the regime, then one should get out of that institution.
It's like Paul telling a slave that can become free to use freedom more. He says to assess what is profitable as well as what is lawful. He seems to be saying that if we have an occasion to be more profitable in our service to Christ, do it. See that occasion as an opportunity that God has offered. 99% of the time, this will involve "power-under" modes of influence for the Christian.
When you add on the fact that Christ seemed to think it possible that the parousia would occur within the time of his own generation (involving much persecution from the powers that were), it makes perfect sense that he would put his emphasis on "power-under" modes of influence. But the principles he emphasized (1st and 2nd greatest commandments) did not preclude the propriety of being a soldier so long as the soldier acted appropriately within that vocation.
Jeff: Paul goes on to say that we owe the State taxes because of what good (i.e., deterring of evil and praise of good) they perform--however little it might be. He doesn't say we owe them taxes, or even obedience, for any other reason. That's why I see the State as analogous to a parent. Children are to obey parents for their own good--not just because. So I think minors can be obligated to disobey parents in some circumstances just like we must disobey the government in some cases.
Zach: I agree. Every authority performs some good. And we owe every authority subordination (not necessarily obedience).
Jeff: If two God-ordained authorities (e.g., the state and parents) require contradictory acts of obedience, I don't know what criteria to use to determine what to do other than what produces the greatest good. But I don't mean that in a utilitarian sense. Because utilitarianism doesn't consider God as one whose sentient interests are relevant in the utility calculation. But the Christian theist can never be limited by such a calculation.
Our perspective of what counts as the greatest good is broader than that of the humanist ultilitarian. And this, ironically, makes it easier to know what the right thing to do is. Because we have been given a great deal of information about the will of God. In the meanwhile, I take great comfort in knowing that God will not allow me to be tested above what I am able in such judgments.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/2/2007 12:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: "A Christian may participate in political government to the extent that he/she exercises their particular role in that institution within the bounds God has ordained for that institution."
Zach: Still I think that the premise should be clear that the Christian role should also be taken into consideration. Participation must not only conform to the government's role but also the Christian's role. Just add "and within the bounds God has ordained for the Christian."
I agree that the Romans 13 passage is dealing primarily with government.
I think the root of our disagreement is that I think Jesus states a unifying principal for his teachings when he makes reference to the Father. Not only in the Sermon on the Mount but also in other places Jesus draws comparisons between God-man interactions and man-man interactions: we forgive others because God forgives us, we allow evil because God allows evil, we are generous because God is generous, etc. Whatever the image of God or being one with Christ means it at least extends to the point where our moral choices can be meaningfully based on imitation of God.
The problem I have with your modified utilitarianism (if I may call it that) is that it defines human good action in qualitatively different terms than divine good action, i.e. good for God is not the same as good for a human. It is"good" for God to allow a father to get drunk and beat his wife, but it is bad for me to give a hopeless man five dollars if he tells me he's going to spend it on cigarettes. Even more puzzling is that the standard of morality applied to the human is much higher than is the one applied to God. God can actively create and passively allow widespread suffering and death while I am supposed to thoughtfully consider the relatively small consequences of my actions.
Yet somehow the God-man Jesus is good. Right now he possesses the ability to effect the good ends which he instead leaves to me. So for God at least, it is good to allow bad choices to be made even with the use of God's own gifts. I think we can agree on this point. God is good, and still God knowingly allows his actions and gifts to be made use of for evil.
But shouldn't we be good/holy/perfect as our Father is good? I think Jesus teaches that we should. Jesus does not say that we should love others, forgive, turn the other cheek, etc. because it will maximize good. And he certainly doesn't say that it will maximize a conception of good to which the Father does not hold himself.
As far as Romans 13 goes, we've got to read it in context. Chapter 13 is a clarification of a particular application of Romans 12, which deals with refusing to repay evildoers and blessing those who seek to harm. The New Testament frequently calls for subordination to government. It never calls for participation. People began reading participation into Romans 13 only 200 years after it was written. Today we frequently think in either/or terms. Either we are on the side of the government or against it. Jesus and Paul show us a third way: willing subordination.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/2/2007 12:23:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/2/2007 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: "A Christian may participate in political government to the extent that he/she exercises their particular role in that institution within the bounds God has ordained for that institution."
Zach: Still I think that the premise should be clear that the Christian role should also be taken into consideration. Participation must not only conform to the government's role but also the Christian's role. Just add "and within the bounds God has ordained for the Christian."
Jeff: I totally agree. My bad. It is that qualification combined with the fact that God never allows governments to be unjust that makes it very difficult for the Christian to "fit in" with secular governments. I'm not saying it's impossible--just difficult and improbable.
Zach: I think the root of our disagreement is that I think Jesus states a unifying principal for his teachings when he makes reference to the Father. Not only in the Sermon on the Mount but also in other places Jesus draws comparisons between God-man interactions and man-man interactions: we forgive others because God forgives us,...
Jeff: I agree. I think God loves (i.e., increases the sentient satisfaction of) all to the degree that he can, given the constraints He works within. My point is that God has jurisdiction over aspects of the world that I don't. And God's management of those aspects have effect upon us, Christ, and Himself. So whereas "as yourself" in the 2nd greatest commandment imposes a certain kind of constraint on me, God has certain constraints that condition how He can maximize Christ's sentient satisfaction from creation. So I would agree in that sense--God does all He can within the constraints to implement fitting means required to attain what creation is for (i.e., the maximal sentient satisfaction of the Son, which maximally satisfies God).
This is not inconsistent with the fact that God acts lovingly, when He acts at all, towards humans. But God does different things for different people depending on conditions. God gives the Spirit to some, and not others, e.g. Surely giving the Spirit is a gift of love. And yet He doesn't give the Spirit only to those who ask. I suspect most pagans in the Roman empire received the Holy Spirit upon believing without even knowing there was such a thing. I, for one, didn't ask to receive the holy spirit. I had no theology about it when I believed. But God gave it, nonetheless.
So even though God does certain things for certain people because of certain conditions, It is not necessarily true that He does all these things for them because they ask. So some loving interactions are not God-man interactions, per se. There are God-believer interactions that are unique to believers. Similarly, we judge those within but not those without. Christ said as much, too. This is why I can't see how we can level everything--because God doesn't. Christ told his disciples they would receive if they asked believing. How do I apply that to someone asking me for help? He told them to seek so they could find. How do I apply that to my neighbor? What should I require that he/she seek of me?
Zach: we allow evil because God allows evil,
Jeff: Where does it say that? I think the Spirit dropping Ananias and his wife dead in their tracks is a good example of God not allowing certain evil. I think Christ casting out demons was him not allowing certain evil. When all bow their knee and confess, I don't assume that is all volitional.
Zach: The problem I have with your modified utilitarianism (if I may call it that) is that it defines human good action in qualitatively different terms than divine good action, i.e. good for God is not the same as good for a human. It is"good" for God to allow a father to get drunk and beat his wife,
Jeff: I wouldn't say that. I would say that the perpetuation of the world as a world leads to a good. The specific evils that occur along the way are not goods to God. They cause God to suffer, as I understand it. He forebears for the joy set before Him, as did Christ.
Zach: but it is bad for me to give a hopeless man five dollars if he tells me he's going to spend it on cigarettes.
Jeff: I wouldn't say that either. If a man is in dire straits, cigarettes may be therapeutic for him as morphine is to the sick. We know morphine is bad for the body, but it can be a lesser of evils. What I have in mind are con-artists who would work for their bread if they weren't able to con people. Maybe there aren't any such folks like that. I just posit that to make the point I'm getting at.
Zach: Even more puzzling is that the standard of morality applied to the human is much higher than is the one applied to God. God can actively create and passively allow widespread suffering and death while I am supposed to thoughtfully consider the relatively small consequences of my actions.
Jeff: I don't say that God is passive. I believe He has to forebear in suffering to attain the end of creation. And it is that end which He is ever mindful of. I believe God has to suffer in the short run just like we do.
Zach: Yet somehow the God-man Jesus is good. Right now he possesses the ability to effect the good ends which he instead leaves to me.
Jeff: I don't know that to be true. I think the God-man is constrained just like the Father. For God to be constrained means, to me, that He can't be motivated to do those things that He knows would compromise His ability to achieve the end or ends of creation, one of which is to maximally glorify Christ. And apparently, for this to occur, the world has to continue.
Zach: So for God at least, it is good to allow bad choices to be made even with the use of God's own gifts. I think we can agree on this point. God is good, and still God knowingly allows his actions and gifts to be made use of for evil.
Jeff: Yes I agree. I just think God is good in what He does. But I don't assume that sinners are necessarily the beneficiaries of God's forebearance. Maybe Christ is definitely the beneficiary while humans can be depending on what they make of the opportunities afforded them by the allowed freedom. If the opportunity is squandered, God affected no good for them, to my mind. On the other hand, he affected no ill to them, either. For forebearing someone is not affecting someone.
Zach: But shouldn't we be good/holy/perfect as our Father is good? I think Jesus teaches that we should. Jesus does not say that we should love others, forgive, turn the other cheek, etc. because it will maximize good. And he certainly doesn't say that it will maximize a conception of good to which the Father does not hold himself.
Jeff: But he does say don't give that which is holy to the dogs lest they... Indeed, many times he tells why we do or don't do things that have to do with reasons that are not explicitly "because God does or doesn't do that." And Christ did say to do good unto all men. Obviously, we are to love because God loves. But God strikes people dead. God judges people. God avenges (if I remember correctly, Christ told his disciples to pray for deliverance and God would speedily avenge them). So I'm not sure how I can unify everything the way you say we are to. I assume that God is being loving somehow to someone even in killing, judging, and avenging. But that doesn't mean I can imitate God in these things.
Zach: As far as Romans 13 goes, we've got to read it in context. Chapter 13 is a clarification of a particular application of Romans 12, which deals with refusing to repay evildoers and blessing those who seek to harm. The New Testament frequently calls for subordination to government. It never calls for participation. People began reading participation into Romans 13 only 200 years after it was written.
Jeff: Unless the early church assumed that John was antithetical to Christ in telling the soldier how to behave as a soldier, I suspect some of them thought participation in government was not intrinsically evil.
Zach: Today we frequently think in either/or terms. Either we are on the side of the government or against it.
Jeff: I certainly disagree with that, too.
Zach: Jesus and Paul show us a third way: willing subordination.
Jeff: Parents are not obligated to submit to their children (even in their teens) in all cases. I don't think Christ or Paul would have advocated that kind of submission, either.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/3/2007 5:57:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/3/2007 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | J: It is that qualification combined with the fact that God never allows governments to be unjust that makes it very difficult for the Christian to "fit in" with secular governments.
Z: "The fact that God never allows governments to be unjust"? How is that factual? I think that is clearly non-factual.
J: But God does different things for different people depending on conditions.... There are God-believer interactions that are unique to believers.
Z: I agree. But this is not evidence for or against utilitarianism.
J: Christ told his disciples they would receive if they asked believing. How do I apply that to someone asking me for help?
Z: I honestly don't know. This passage is puzzling to me because experience seems to so easily prove it false. All the time in church you hear people say, "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is no." This is almost perfectly contradictory to what Jesus teaches. We would have to say something like: true belief has the consequence of only allowing us to ask of God that which happens to fall within his contraints. But this is a pretty far-fetched and artificial assumption. Perhaps, this applies only within a covenant relationship, or perhaps it applies only to the original apostles. For now, I'll trust that there is truth in the passage that I simply don't understand. But if we universalize it (which Jesus doesn't necessarily do), it is as much a problem for your view as it is for mine.
J: He told them to seek so they could find. How do I apply that to my neighbor? What should I require that he/she seek of me?
Z: I think Jesus makes the answer to this pretty clear.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
J: Where does it say that?
Z: Matt 5. "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person... Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good."
J: I think the Spirit dropping Ananias and his wife dead in their tracks is a good example of God not allowing certain evil.
Z: Where does it say that? It doesn't say God killed them, and even if he did, they had bound themselves to the covenant community meaning they constrained themselves.
J: I think Christ casting out demons was him not allowing certain evil.
Z: I should have been clear. I am only making a claim about sentient human chosen evil.
J: When all bow their knee and confess, I don't assume that is all volitional.
Z: Why not? An annihilationist like me has no trouble with that idea.
J: The specific evils that occur along the way are not goods to God. They cause God to suffer, as I understand it.
Z: Yes, but the quality of God's action (or inaction) in such circumstances is good. God is being good even when he lets men beat their wives. He has some sort of good reason for not saving them. It seems to me that under your stance, if I know of the beating and have the ability to keep the man from exercising his will, I should do so. The man's will is of less value than the woman's.
Under utilitarianism, God does not intervene because he can see the causes and effects and knows it will work out for good. Adding open theism, God does not intervene because he can see the possibilities and knows it will likely work out for good and if at some point it is clear that it wont, he can intervene then (with apologies to the woman who took the unnecessary beating?). How about just saying God has an immediate, present reason for choosing not to intervene, such as his respect for even the free will of sinners.
J: ...one of which is to maximally glorify Christ. And apparently, for this to occur, the world has to continue.
Z: But how do acts of evil contribute to the glorification of Christ? Would intervening to save one abused wife (without ending the world) keep Christ from being maximally glorified? BTW, what passages do you see speaking to the maximization of glorification of Christ as an end of creation?
J: And Christ did say to do good unto all men. Obviously, we are to love because God loves. But God strikes people dead. God judges people. God avenges (if I remember correctly, Christ told his disciples to pray for deliverance and God would speedily avenge them). So I'm not sure how I can unify everything the way you say we are to. I assume that God is being loving somehow to someone even in killing, judging, and avenging.
Z: That's a pretty big and pretty convenient assumption. It works though. I guess I just aesthetically prefer a more unified ethic. I don't like it if I have to add supporting assumptions along the way.
J: Unless the early church assumed that John was antithetical to Christ in telling the soldier how to behave as a soldier, I suspect some of them thought participation in government was not intrinsically evil.
Z: Then, as far as I know, all early Christian's whose writings survived were of the oppinion that Christ's teachings contradicted (or where of a different scope) than John's. John prepared for Jesus. John didn't have it all figured out. John was even unsure of Jesus. "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'" Jesus said, "I have testimony weightier than that of John."
J: Parents are not obligated to submit to their children (even in their teens) in all cases. I don't think Christ or Paul would have advocated that kind of submission, either.
Z: I dont want to go very far into it, but I believe that if a parent raises a child "in the instruction of the Lord," then there will be little problem with subordinating (not necessarily submitting) oneself. If a person meets the requirements for God to respect his/her freedom, then that person meets my requirements for respecting his/her freedom. I don't attempt to outdo God on this point. If God wants a teenager to clean his room, then by all means, God can force him. By why do we want more hierarchy than God? "The greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/3/2007 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | J: It is that qualification combined with the fact that God never allows governments to be unjust that makes it very difficult for the Christian to "fit in" with secular governments.
Z: "The fact that God never allows governments to be unjust"? How is that factual? I think that is clearly non-factual.
J: I agree. I meant to say that God only condones justice by the State. Hence, no Christian has the right to exercise authority unjustly in that role. The authority itself is, I believe, delegated.
J: But God does different things for different people depending on conditions.... There are God-believer interactions that are unique to believers.
Z: I agree. But this is not evidence for or against utilitarianism.
J: I don't believe in utilitarianism. I believe God has a will for us, and He makes it worth our while to serve Him, thus, even if post-mortem sentient satisfaction is necessary to do that.
J: Christ told his disciples they would receive if they asked believing. How do I apply that to someone asking me for help?
Z: I honestly don't know. This passage is puzzling to me because experience seems to so easily prove it false. All the time in church you hear people say, "God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is no." This is almost perfectly contradictory to what Jesus teaches. We would have to say something like: true belief has the consequence of only allowing us to ask of God that which happens to fall within his contraints. But this is a pretty far-fetched and artificial assumption. Perhaps, this applies only within a covenant relationship, or perhaps it applies only to the original apostles. For now, I'll trust that there is truth in the passage that I simply don't understand. But if we universalize it (which Jesus doesn't necessarily do), it is as much a problem for your view as it is for mine.
J: First, I only assume it applies to who he said it to unless I have evidence for applying it further. Second, it doesn't seem as puzzling to me since we've been debating because of the research I've done. Christ, in the Sermon, said to pray that God's will be done on earth. This would imply that they were also praying (i.e., asking) that God's will be done in their life. Hence, since God cannot answer contradictory requests, He answers those that are according to His will. Moreover, anything not of faith is sin (i.e., contrary to God's will). Hence, belief that the request is according to God's will is necessary, also. This pretty much explains James' comments on prayer.
J: He told them to seek so they could find. How do I apply that to my neighbor? What should I require that he/she seek of me?
Z: I think Jesus makes the answer to this pretty clear.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
J: Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the greek word for "seek" implied some diligent effort. I'll try to check that out. But if that's correct, "ask" does not equate to "seek."
J: Where does it say that?
Z: Matt 5. "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person... Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good."
J: If Christ is going to throw goats into age-abiding, tormentuous fire, I don't see how the fact that he never resisted anyone proves anything about his essential nature. It seems to me that if all judgment is given to him, as he supposedly said, and if such judgment entails telling people "depart from me" into "fire," Christ is not essentially passive. But he would have to be for the unification you're arguing for to be true. God avenges, also.
Since both the OT and NT forbid individuals from avenging themselves, the vast majority of Christians have lived passive lives even when they believed there was nothing wrong with being a police. My family members, for example, have not been involved in any kind of physical violence. I'm 47, my brother is 55, my sister is 59, and my mother is 82. This is not a coincidence. This is normal.
What was unique about Christ was that he didn't flee his demise. But he knew he had come for "that hour." I know no such thing of myself. Therefore, like he advised his apostles, I will flee persecution if I can. Even Christ escaped the hands of his would-be murders before his hour came.
J: I think the Spirit dropping Ananias and his wife dead in their tracks is a good example of God not allowing certain evil.
Z: Where does it say that? It doesn't say God killed them, and even if he did, they had bound themselves to the covenant community meaning they constrained themselves.
J: But if the Spirit killed them, God is not passive. We know He's not simply because avenges. Therefore, I'm not seeing how the unification is working.
I would say that killing someone because of their lying has the same implication as making John the Baptist's father mute. It is an act of power that is contrary to the will of some person. Regardless, Christ cast out spirits that talked. I have no reason to assume they were non-volitional beings.
J: I think Christ casting out demons was him not allowing certain evil.
Z: I should have been clear. I am only making a claim about sentient human chosen evil.
J: But how can God be essentially passive if He does things to angels/spirits? The whole argument is about to what extent we imitate God's essential nature. God avenges.
J: The specific evils that occur along the way are not goods to God. They cause God to suffer, as I understand it.
Z: Yes, but the quality of God's action (or inaction) in such circumstances is good. God is being good even when he lets men beat their wives. He has some sort of good reason for not saving them.
J: What do you mean by "some sort of good reason for not saving them?" That sounds like the very consequentialism you're arguing against. I thought that you believed freedom is essentially good no matter how it's used.
Z: It seems to me that under your stance, if I know of the beating and have the ability to keep the man from exercising his will, I should do so. The man's will is of less value than the woman's.
J: I don't think a will, which seems like a capacity only, is valuable. Capacities can not be good or bad, to my mind, unless it is a capacity to only do good. Then we could say that such a capacity is good, in that sense. Actions are good, bad, or neutral (because of having no sentient affect).
Z: Under utilitarianism, God does not intervene because he can see the causes and effects and knows it will work out for good.
J: I've never heard of utilitarianism having anything to do with divine intervention. I've always heard it being discussed in terms of human good via human action.
Z: Adding open theism, God does not intervene because he can see the possibilities and knows it will likely work out for good and if at some point it is clear that it wont, he can intervene then (with apologies to the woman who took the unnecessary beating?). How about just saying God has an immediate, present reason for choosing not to intervene, such as his respect for even the free will of sinners.
J: Because I honestly can't conceive of a capacity (i.e., a will) which can affect either good or evil as being either good or evil. Only actions, to my mind, can affect sentient beings for good or evil. And I don't think God respects evil actions.
J: ...one of which is to maximally glorify Christ. And apparently, for this to occur, the world has to continue.
Z: But how do acts of evil contribute to the glorification of Christ?
J: They don't, intrinsically. They can play a role in two senses, to my mind:
1) God can providentially use an otherwise merely evil event to bring about good for some sentient beings.
2) God perpetuates the world as an ordered system (entailing the allowance of free choices), because extending the duration of the world somehow increases His/Christ's sentient satisfaction--though He must suffer forebearance in the short run to get it. IOW, although God is taking pleasure in holiness and praise even now, some of God's sentient satisfaction from creation comes by patiently tolerating the current regime in a world-order until some divine end is ultimately attained.
Z: Would intervening to save one abused wife (without ending the world) keep Christ from being maximally glorified?
J: This gets to my 2), above. I don't think God wants to destroy the world-order, because that order is part and parcel of how His end is attained. But He does suffer from the evils that occur along the way.
Z: BTW, what passages do you see speaking to the maximization of glorification of Christ as an end of creation?
J: Let's just say that God/Christ have the capacity to receive greater or lesser sentient satisfaction from creation depending on how volition is used. IOW, degree is a category that applies to God's sentient satisfaction as much as it is to ours. This is where I disagree with Tom and D. They view God's sentient dissatisfaction as relatively insignificant compared to a virtually infinitely greater bliss. In particular, they hold that the Son existed as the Logos/Word in incarnate form while Christ was suffering in an incarnate state. This way, Christ's sufferings are negligible compared to the total blissful experience of the Son.
I, on the other hand, accept that both God and Christ can significantly suffer for others. So degree is a real category for the sentient satisfaction of God and Christ, to me. This, in turn, is what makes sense for me of the idea in scripture of "fit." Things are fit (in the sense of fitting means) because they enhance the degree of God's/Christ's sentient satisfaction. When I sin, I think I decrease that degree by some truly sensible amount.
J: And Christ did say to do good unto all men. Obviously, we are to love because God loves. But God strikes people dead. God judges people. God avenges (if I remember correctly, Christ told his disciples to pray for deliverance and God would speedily avenge them). So I'm not sure how I can unify everything the way you say we are to. I assume that God is being loving somehow to someone even in killing, judging, and avenging.
Z: That's a pretty big and pretty convenient assumption. It works though. I guess I just aesthetically prefer a more unified ethic. I don't like it if I have to add supporting assumptions along the way.
J: I'm only assuming that Christ really said what the gospels say he did. And I agree that it is less parsimonious in that sense. But I still say the unification works so long as judgment and vengeance are truly acts of love that positively affect someone's sentient satisfaction. And I think they do. Why else would Christ say that all judgment was given to him unless there is some honor in receiving it? But it does mean that we can't imitate God and Christ in all particulars. Vengeance is not mine.
J: Parents are not obligated to submit to their children (even in their teens) in all cases. I don't think Christ or Paul would have advocated that kind of submission, either.
Z: I dont want to go very far into it, but I believe that if a parent raises a child "in the instruction of the Lord," then there will be little problem with subordinating (not necessarily submitting) oneself. If a person meets the requirements for God to respect his/her freedom, then that person meets my requirements for respecting his/her freedom. I don't attempt to outdo God on this point.
J: But you are saying that God respects all freedom. Hence, a parent could do nothing with their children but give verbal advice. They would watch their child hit other children and just watch while advising against it. But, alas, even God doesn't verbally advise all people. So again, I don't see how to make the unification work to that extreme.
Z: "The greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."
J: Well, does the "you" refer to those he actually spoke to, or does it refer to all human beings. If the latter, you should be able to raise a child in safety and health by serving only. Maybe this is possible. But it seems so improbable that I'll just assume the "you" referred to those he was speaking to.
Alternatively, one could say that government officials are servants in the sense that, when they govern aright, they are "ministers" unto our good. This latter sense would imply that Christ was criticizing how the "powers that be" actually govern as opposed to how they ought to govern. Paul said of himself, even, that he had been given authority unto edification--not to rule over people's faith.
The main idea I think Christ is getting at is this: where much is given, much is required. In the world, people see it as the exact opposite. They think the more power/authority you have, the more perogative you have to do as you wish. If I remember correctly, the word "lord over" has the intensive "kata." This is probably why the translators say "lord over." It is a way of saying that they lord excessively. Christ is saying, I think, that leadership is best done just the opposite of that approach. God expects the most out of leaders. This is why even teachers will receive the greater judgment, as James says.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/3/2007 8:38:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/3/2007 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | First of all, I love that this is going on in the incest post. That's pretty funny.
I admit, I have plenty of doubts about my own position. I'm just going to stick to the things I'm most firm on.
I think you are right in pointing out consequentialist threads in my thinking. Compared to consequentialist, I don't fit in, but at the core I've got it. I just think that the ends which are supremely valuable to God are relationships of love which, by my debatable definition, must be freely chosen. If it's freely chosen, it has the capacity for evil. Goodness without freedom is deterministic. This is why I say God must respect freedom even if used for evil. Without freedom there is no loving relationship, so if God wants freedom he's got to tolerate the potential for evil. (I suppose 'tolerate' is a better word than 'respect'.) If he just zaps those who use freedom for evil, then you've got what amounts to coersion and determinism.
I would even say that this goal supercedes the glorification of Christ. I say this because (1) I see this idea as much of the time too vague to be understandable or useful and often used as a catch all for any otherwise unexplainable element of theology and (2) because Christ's glorification in the resurrection came through the means of a thoroughly unglorifying event, so it may be a tricky process to consistently use the idea of glofication in a way does not directly oppose the lived ethic of Jesus - there is something very important about de-glorification, about taking up one's cross, in the lived ethic of Jesus.
Taking up one's cross is central to Christian discipleship. I have been taking it to be more then just central though. I've been understanding taking up the cross as being definitional to it all. That is something that I may need to modify, but I want to do it carefully. In reading Rene Girard I've been convinced that the passion is an ethical event. Atonement happens through the cross, but so does discipleship. When Jesus refered to the cross it was very frequently in reference to discipleship. If hundreds of years later Christians found satisfaction or governmental atonement implications in the event or his reference to being "a ransom for many", those innovations may have their place, but the cross is primarily Jesus living his life rightly and teaching through example.
This does not mean that the Christian should seek opportunities to be killed, but there is something very central about the example of the cross.
Even if Christian ethics are not entirely about the cross, government is firstly about security. Only after security is firmed up does government make allowances for freedom (of course there are exeptions, but generally it is life, then liberty). I think with what Jesus calls the kingdom of God it is just the opposite. Security is assumed. All that we must focus on is using freedom for good and encouraging others to do so also.
And to get nit-picky. I am very confident that the common understanding of government passages in the New Testament is drastically mistaken. Paul says, "upotassestho (subordinate or yield)," and we hear "become part of." Those kings and authorities which Jesus mentioned in Luke 22 are examples of what not to do. (And there is no kata, intensive or otherwise, just kyrieuousin - rule.) Jesus occupies a governmental position over a jurisdiction which is claimed by other governments. There is a use for worldly governments in God's plan, but it is a place which is (to varying degrees) essentially the same as that of Babylon whose evil actions were reinterpreted by the prophets as the dealing out of God's justice (without claiming that God condoned them). I take Samuel's position (or rather, God's position as reported by Samuel): secular government is idolatry. "They have rejected me as their king." I know I sound over-dramatic about it. But I think Jesus' position as present political ruler (i.e. lord) is almost universally neglected.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/5/2007 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | I agree that freedom is part and parcel of love. But I also agree that God WANTS us to love. By that, I mean it gives Him sentient satisfaction. Seemingly glory is part of that sentient satisfaction that Christ receives from creation, too. I don't try to squeeze too much out of that other than the fact that divine sentient satisfaction is enhanced by perpetuating this world order, despite all of its attendant evils that He forebears in the meanwhile.
I agree that Christ's death was exemplary. But so was that of prior martyrs. What made Christ's death so unique was that he was the very perfect creator dying for those who murdered him. And historically, this was profound because they expected a Messiah that would not suffer. Much of the gospel testimony deals with just this aspect of Christ's first coming that so confused people.
For those of us who hear of Christ's death now, this aspect is not emphasized as much. But at the time, it was front and center. For the Messiah to say "take up your cross and follow me" was astounding to his generation whether they understood him to be referring to literal crucifixion or just suffering. They were trying to reconcile "the KINGDOM of God is at hand" with "suffer with the KING!" It contradicted all their preconceived ideas. But Peter says "first the sufferings, THEN the glory."
So they didn't interpret Christ as being essentially passive. They did, however, distinguish between the first and the second coming. The same ideas are there in the gospels, too. Christ talks about his glorious coming with angels and age-abiding judgment while foretelling his own death at the hands of those he said may be alive when he came in judgment! First suffering, THEN GLORY.
I also agree that people put way too much hope in government. As you say, government is more and more pointless to the extent that people make God/Christ their king/lord. This is true even in the sense that you say God uses government for good. To the extent that government has any desirable role at all, it is because the world is NOT subject to the lordship of Christ.
Thanks for the heads-up on Luke 22. I still don't see how it rules out the view that I was articulating. To my mind, parents are legitimate authorities for their children. But this doesn't mean they should lord over their children. Yet many expoit their authority for their own self-interest. This is true of all kinds of authorities in the world. It is the rule and not the exception. Christ may have been saying just that. The language is equivocal.
And that is the point. Where language is equivocal, we tend to see things in the way that seems the most unifying for us. I think this is a good thing. But in the short run, we will unify differently. But even so, I think the practical outcomes of our views will end up being VERY similar because of the sheer improbability of the "hard" cases of our respective views ever even occurring. E.g., it find it extremely improbable that a devout Christian could be elected to an influential office.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/5/2007 8:35:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/6/2007 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach, I was looking this morning. It turns out that the "kata" intensive is used in the parallel accounts of Matthew 20 and Mark 10. The "kata" doesn't prove anything, per se. I think the account in Luke makes the point even more clearly than the "kata" in the other accounts. Luke records the part where Christ speaks of the worldly authorities reclining while they expect their subjects to serve them. He points out the irony that they are deemed as benefactors, nonetheless.
I see nothing in the OT that claims that God desired authority to act that way. I think of David dancing with joy in his pajamas while his wife thought that was beneath him (or something like that). I think Paul's account of what government is supposed to be (and is, to some extent) is pretty much what the OT says too. The idea that where much is given, much is required is not some new idea that Christ originated. It is what all just people have always known. Consequently, I see no contradiction in Christ's teaching that suffering/servanthood must precede glory/authority with the Jewish belief that the Christ would one day rule with a rod of iron in righteousness.
Hence, I see no metaphysical idea about unconditional, divine passivism in Christ's teachings. And this is why I can't see the unification of that particular. I simply accept that God can and will avenge, e.g., while I can't. I see the unification as having to do rather with the fact that God is loving someone somehow even in those actions. Yet God is wronging no one in those actions. Maybe He is loving everyone somehow in those actions in ways I can't fully understand. But I at least say He is never treating anyone with malice or petty. In this way, the unification still works to that extent.
I just accept that there are some things that would be malevolent for me to do that are not so for God. I am to treat people as I want to be treated as a fellow-human. Paul seems to be saying that if we really understood the delegated role government plays in the big picture, we would see it as the divinely-appointed minister of good unto us that it really is. Then, we would realize that paying taxes and subjecting ourselves to them is not the problem that the zealots and their gentile analogues think it is. So I would say the very thrust of Romans 13 is consequentialism. But this does not, as you say, equate to an invitation to participate in government. Participation has to be justified on different grounds.
(There has probably always been a minority like modern day libertarians who see that government is not near the benefactor it claims to be and is generally believed to be. I disagree with anarcho-libertarians like those at LewRockwell.com because I think they seriously underestimate the extent to which the average human needs some negative reinforcement to motivate them to be civil. Because they are consequentialists, I think they would change their mind if they were ever allowed to put their hypothesis about human nature to the test. Humans really are "quick to shed blood." We see this is in how they are so ready to go to brutally destructive war over relatively minor provocations or weak "justifications." But I totally agree with most libertarian criticisms of government.)
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/6/2007 11:22:32 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/7/2007 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Here are the parallels from the NIV. It would take more effort than I am willing to spend on a Saturday to get into the Greek very deeply.
Mark 10: You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Matt 20: You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Luke 22: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that.
The general agreement is that Luke borrowed from Mark and that Luke is the more "socially progressive" of the gospels. So, it seems there would be little reason for Luke to "tone down" the language of "lording it over." Presumably, whatever Luke meant was as strong or stronger than what Mark (and likely Matthew) meant.
Whatever is meant by "lording it over" and "exercising authority" is what Jesus is forbidding. In every account this is Jesus' response not to a request to be cruel rulers but simply to sit at Jesus' side in the kingdom and be considered the highest ranking. I think that within the context of the passage we can be fairly certain that Jesus was correcting the disciples with these words. Their dispute was not wrong because the winner would be a poor or hypocritical ruler. Their dispute was wrong because they were seeking authority over others. It's not that they wanted bad or improper authority. It is that they wanted authority at all. (This-worldly authority to be precise.) It is important that we remember that these passages are first a condemnation of the (relatively mild) attitudes of the disciples and only tangentially of the (much more severe) practices of governement.
References to ruling with an iron septer or similar metaphors I take to apply within some sort of freely entered agreement or covenant. I do think there is a "violent" side of God, but I think it is better understood as "a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over." It is still an instance of God allowing the person to decide for himself. Jesus has strong words for the Jewish people but says relatively little about the Romans who were committing their injustices on a much larger scale.
I too fail to see unconditional passivism in Christ's teachings, but I do take nonviolent tolerance to be the default starting place for God-to-human relationships. Even if there is no person who lives to adulthood without making some implicit or explicit agreement, I think it is necessary for holding a conception of a just God to view God/man interactions with this background. It might be clearer stated in the negative. If we are born into a set of obligations, then these obligations have priority over freedom and therefore love. So I take it that any just obligation (and any just wrath-of-God consequence of failing to perform that obligation) must be freely chosen.
In regard to government, I agree that the average human needs some negative reinforcement in order to motivate them to be civil. I disagree with what I take to be an unspoken assumption: that it is the divinely delgated role of the Church or Christian to motivate the average human to be civil. My view is that the Church (or the Christian) is to live trusting in God to the extent that it will willingly suffer. By living in trust and calling the world to join it, the convert may enter into the kingdom and become something more than average. Why, after all, does the human need negative reinfocement? The degree to which one trusts in God's faithfulness is the same degree to which one ceases to need negative reinforcement.
This is not to say that there should be no discipline within the Church. I do think that the practice of loving confrontation and excommunication if necessarily is appropriate for the Chruch, but it is a practice which is not hidden from the convert, so that no obligation is imposed without consent. But Church discipline is not a way of ensuring security or civility. The Church needs no additional security.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/8/2007 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: So, it seems there would be little reason for Luke to "tone down" the language of "lording it over."
J: I'm not saying that Luke is toning it down. I think he expresses more clearly what the "kata" is getting at.
Z: Whatever is meant by "lording it over" and "exercising authority" is what Jesus is forbidding. In every account this is Jesus' response not to a request to be cruel rulers but simply to sit at Jesus' side in the kingdom and be considered the highest ranking. I think that within the context of the passage we can be fairly certain that Jesus was correcting the disciples with these words. Their dispute was not wrong because the winner would be a poor or hypocritical ruler. Their dispute was wrong because they were seeking authority over others. It's not that they wanted bad or improper authority.
J: They were not wanting bad or improper authority. And there is no doubt that the apostles were not to be in a position of coercive authority in their life. They were chosen to be apostles.
But the attitude of wanting to be at the left and right hand of Christ in his kingdom was what Christ seemed to be addressing. Christ explained what was wrong with their attitude in terms of the idea that "where much is given, much is required." He asked them if they were able to drink of his cup, which of course meant suffering. He said they would judge Israel in his kingdom since they had abandoned all to follow him. In both cases, it is their servant sacrifice that fits them for authority/judgment. They had left all and they would drink of his cup.
The government authorities, Christ argues, are just the opposite. They recline while others serve them. Those authorities see power as a means to advance self-interest. And yet, they are deemed as benefactors by the servants, nonetheless. This is exactly backwards to the way real authority should work--even in something as lowly as parenthood.
In short, Christ seems to be saying that if they really understood the cost of true authority, they would not be so greedily competitive to sit at the left and the right of the King. Indeed, such an attitude was incompatible with the single-minded passion for righteousness necessary to prevail over temptation. Hence, when Christ was taken, they fled in fear. They never really did understand the real cost of attaining to the position of judges in Christ's kingdom until after Christ died. And Christ knew they didn't understand that cost. They couldn't even accept his own words about his own pending death. But he knew the Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance once Christ sent it.
Z: If we are born into a set of obligations, then these obligations have priority over freedom and therefore love. So I take it that any just obligation (and any just wrath-of-God consequence of failing to perform that obligation) must be freely chosen.
J: I would say that the minute a person begins to judge others, morally, they have "chosen," for all practical purposes, to be judged themselves. They need not explicitly embrace any defined contract or covenant. Their own standard of judgment becomes the standard of their own judgment. And I've never met anyone who doesn't make moral judgments about human behavior. Not saying such people don't exist. I just think they are so few, if they exist, that Christ didn't need to spend any time dealing with the subject. Paul even says that Gentiles without the law would be judged apart from the law.
Z: In regard to government, I agree that the average human needs some negative reinforcement in order to motivate them to be civil. I disagree with what I take to be an unspoken assumption: that it is the divinely delgated role of the Church or Christian to motivate the average human to be civil.
J: I don't see anything that says government is delegated to the Church. I just think Genesis shows that God sanctioned the retaliatory shedding of blood for man after the Flood. Whether Noah understood this to apply to all men, I don't know. But in historical fact, the role seems to have been delegated to a governmental body, or the community under the leadership of tribal elders, or something to that effect. This, in a sense, is an extension of the family. Ancient nations (i.e., ethnic societies) were extended families. When the societies became large, it probably became more practical to institute governments powerful enough to defend against other nations as well as implement deterring justice within their society.
Ancient Israel, even, had judges and coercive modes of restitution and capital punishment long before they had a king. So their decision to have a king was not a decision to institute coercive methods. It was a concession that they would not, as a society, voluntarily live in such a way that the blessings of the covenant would be experienced. In that sense, they had, as a society, rejected God as their king. Samuel, as an individual, however, had not rejected God as his personal king.
Z: I do think that the practice of loving confrontation and excommunication if necessarily is appropriate for the Chruch, but it is a practice which is not hidden from the convert, so that no obligation is imposed without consent.
J: I would say that there is always some lack of consent in church discipline. The disciplined one disagrees, in many cases, with the discipliners. The same is true of government.
Much of my approach to scripture is based on Rom. 14 about judging. We are to be fully persuaded before we judge or exercise discipline on our brethren. I'm simply not fully persuaded that Luke 22 can only mean what you think it means. I can see how, contextually, it can be a description of how those apostles who would eventually judge the 12 tribes of Israel in Christ's kingdom were to perform their apostolic ministry, prior to the parousia.
This way, I don't have to say that John the Baptist, the greatest of those born of women, was clueless when he told a soldier how to soldier in a way "meet for repentance." I don't like judging the dead (i.e., John the Baptist) any more than the living unless I'm fully persuaded.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/8/2007 8:51:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:10 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 |
|
|