 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > A Great Time Talking Faith and Politics | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/7/2007 7:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | LOL...I think most of us more regular posters have come upon the infamous "666 post" think'n about the devil. Why don't you wait till the next Friday the 13th to post VGF. On that day do also the following:
1. Step on a crack on the sidewalk...
2. Break a mirror...
3. Walk under a ladder...
4. Have a black cat walk in front of you....if you can't get the black cat to walk in front of you? Then try to position yourself so that it does.
We'll see you then. 
To jefscot: Right. Greg would not advocate violence on any level as a means to an end. However, this doesn't mean that he believes that we should not be involved in politics. It's hard to imagine Greg saying, "Until the church gets its act together we have no right to say anything to government. So **I personally** will refrain until such a time."
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 9/7/2007 7:58:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/7/2007 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | I don't know, Brandon. I really think he has changed recently. Because he used to argue that a Christian could legitimately exert force as a police. Here's what he said:
3. I agree in a sense that Kingdom people can function as the "conscience of governement," but it's not by our WORDS, but by our LIFE. The unique Kingdom way to function as the conscience of government is simply by BEING THE KINGDOM -- which means, LOOKING LIKE JESUS. If the Church would sacrificially care about the poor, the homeless, the economically and racially oppressed, etc… it would cast a light on government that would expose its inadequate attention to these issues, just as Jesus exposed the ugliness of earthly governements (and the demonic power behind them, cf. Lk 4:5-7) by allowing himself to be crucified as he entered into solidarity with sinners.
His last remarks of that post are:
How you vote isn't going to change the world. How you LIVE will. God promises it.
So there you have it. Neither words nor votes are going to change things--ONLY right-relating. He even admitted he had a change of mind about police force. So I'm thinking this whole essay is a revelation of a somewhat paradigmatic change of mind for Greg.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/7/2007 7:45:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/7/2007 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yeah. It's still the same. I still go back to my first point--to square one. In order for us to be the "conscience of government" we have to live like Kingdom people. Which means we don't have anything to do with government. We just help the poor, the oppressed, the marginal, etc with the hopes that government will see our love and in turn follow suit with laws that will concern itself with the above. But in order to do this, to look like the kingdom, A VERY LARGE PART of that entails not just alleviating need, but abolishing it. It's a false dichotomy jefscot. By the way, I still find him one or two steps removed (if that is his position) but still coercive nonetheless. I mean, seriously, I can't help but think that Jamie Smith was correct when he called Greg a pietist.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/8/2007 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | First, just as an aside, I was thinking to myself the other day as I'm sitting in the Detroit/Windsor tunnel driving the bus, why there are religion courses at universities and what difference it makes in the real world. I was think'n about the federal government and why they will grant loans, tutitions, scholarships, etc to someone studying religion. Like what does that have on economics and mak'n cars? And you've just shown it. It really does effect us at that level of living. I wonder if people in power have been viewing the Open Theism debate and keep'n an eye on it for what it will mean for the nation and for future generations. Awww...maybe it doesn't even concern them. OK. Forget it. I was just musing...
Anyhoo...you may be right not to call "being the conscience of the government" coercive, but I was thinking more along the lines that being in such a position would put one two steps removed, though not coercive, but nontheless complicit in the coercion of whatever the outcome of legal decisions that are made, as after all the conscience of the one is complicit in the actions of person. That is, being a conscience to someone or something entails A LOT of responsibility. Identifying "the powers" with political institutions, such that if they are inherently corrupt with negative coercive power, how can one trust themselves to be the conscience of such institutions that ultimately use worldly means to achieve godly ends (if, that is, you believe that that kind of coercion is worldly)?
about the church being a "model for government" Greg said:
"How you vote isn't going to change the world. How you LIVE will. God promises it."
Its not that Greg is OVERLY confident about the ability of Christians to change the world, (something that Theonomists and some on the Christian Right have messianic complexes over, such that they are all the same in this regard)? It seems the problem is that there are many ways in which the church cannot be this model and what Greg says here is WAY too ambiguous. For an example, the church should be distinguished as a non-violent community modeling the Kingdom on the one hand standing against ANTI-COMMUNITY, yet simultaneously the church should call on the government (via simply living the "community Kingdom values"?) to legislate and even enforce what the church first develops as a model. With such an understanding the church would be a undifferentiated model for EVERY form human community including the state. The problem is, is that this does not allow us to come to grips with the different normative purposes of the wide range of institutions in our society. This is very problematic.
Also, lets just say, for example, that we agree that Christians should NOT ask the state to make it illegal to violate biblical ethical norms except where such violations harm the rights of others (something most Christians would agree with anyway and so we try to somehow model that). One has to ask then, why this is a biblical and just principle FOR government. Why limit public law to protecting people from the harm of others? If it is because the church is a non-violent assembly of love IN CONTRAST TO THE STATE which uses coercion to punish evil, then it would appear the church cannot serve as a model for the state. Now, if you believe the state SHOULD enforce certain laws to protect people from the harm of others, the modeling concept then, loses much of its appeal and the power of biblical mandates diminishes as the Church mediates them to society.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 9/8/2007 5:46:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/8/2007 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: Why does Greg think it'll be different if just that portion of humanity that is Christian lives perfectly 'Kingdom'?
Jeff: Yeah. That's my question. I guess if I can take his discussion of postmillenialism in his "Spectrum" book as a true reflection of his views, then I can at least see how he interprets some verses to get to postmillenialism. But there is always difficulty coming up with an unequivocal scriptural explanation for any of the eschatological "isms." And that being the case, he is on difficult ground trying to start with a difficult textual subject and then additionally reconcile that with all he has said about LFW, solidification, and an open future.
Granted, the theonomists that Brandon referred to are postmillenialists, typically. But they are also typically Calvinistic, aren't they? So at least they don't have the difficulty of reconciling an inevitable postmillenialism with LFW, solidification, and openness. Greg ought to do a post explaining how he ties it all together.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/9/2007 9:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Brandon, I couldn't wait until next Friday... this thread may be dead by then (slight pun intended... after posting my most evil post yet, I'm still in that mindset! )
So here are my thoughts regarding your response
BBBCanada said...
1. We are not to power over others--this is sin--it is a part of the "kingdoms of this world."
2. Governments inherently power over others--(so let them or "it" if you'd like to say, be the ones to do it, but the Christian shouldn't).
3. We speak to government from without--(your saying that he is saying that we are not to be getting out of politics altogether).
Regarding #1, this can lead to a slippery slope. What exactly constitutes as “power over”? Yeah, there are clear-cut cases… but there’s also a lot of grey-area there. Also, it’s not clear that the kingdoms of the world are inherently evil. I mean, look at what Paul wrote about in Romans 13 (Greg even points out that chapter in his blog). So it’s hard to make a blanket statement saying “exercising power-over is a sin” because again what exactly constitutes as “power over”? One could also say the same regarding “coercion”. What exactly is coercion? Or more specifically “good coercion” vs. “bad coercion”. Again, yeah, clear-cut cases, but if I’m picking up my cat to bring her inside the house, am I still coercing my cat (before she runs under the ladder during a full moon?)? Is it wrong for one to discipline one’s kids (thinking of the discussion we had on this site a while ago)?
My take is this: if we should get anything from the Cross/Sword series, it’s that if we want to spread the gospel to others, it ought not be done in a power-over manner, but strictly power-under. But does that also apply to how we wholly live our lives? What about the “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is God’s” distinction? Jesus left the specifics out… to the chagrin of us type-A personalities. Eeeek! So it's up to us to figure out (with the help of leadings of the Holy Spirit, of course) the specifics as far as applying that principle in our lives.
So all of that being said, I think #1 may not be quite so clear-cut. In fact, it's probably impossible for us to lay out the specifics.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:10 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 |
|
|