 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/6/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | I don't think we were well prepared for the extreme change in circumstances that occurred with Constantine's conversion.
Too many likely Christian leaders, missing the good old days of martyrdom purity, went off to be white martyrs instead of dealing with the ambiguities of determining right conduct as part of the establishment.
For me, I consider the question how might of Christianity developed ecclesiastically if the rise of Islam had not made it so Christianity had one center instead of four. After all, if power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps, we could have avoided the Protestant-Catholic schism with the subsequent loss of Church autonomy from the state that accompanied it if so much ecclesiastical authority had not been so concentrated in Rome in the first place.
I also think that if Christian leaders had been better equipped with dealing with the demands of ecclesiastical/political leadership the institutionalization of anti-semitism could have been avoided and perhaps Mohammed would not have rejected Christianity in the first place.
I mean there is evidence that when Mohammed arrived at Jerusalem, he was viewed by the Jews there as a liberator, not one who was trying to start a new religion. And so it seems plausible that he, after being turned off from the Byzantine nature of Byzantine Christianity, was seeking to establish a Judaism for non-Jews/Arabs...
Anyways, Constantine's conversion probably was, in fact, an act of God and the ecclesiastical leadership failures that followed it were independent of it and not inevitable.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/6/2003 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | At root with Bush's view seems to be the issue of predestination vs. free-will, was the determination of the election outcome from 2000 a matter of divine intervention or the product of fallible free-wills.
As an open-theist, I see the latter not the former. However, for Dubya to view his task as president from the perspective of his faith is not wrong.
What is wrong is the view my grandparents took, that since so many people are, rightfully, praying for the president we should treat his policies as if they are from God.
This is wrong. Apart from an affirmation of the power of prayer, reality is complicated and its power need not be viewed as deterministic and so praying for our leaders shouldn't preclude evaluating their decision-making quality, political priorities...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 11/6/2003 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
At root with Bush's view seems to be the issue of predestination vs. free-will, was the determination of the election outcome from 2000 a matter of divine intervention or the product of fallible free-wills.
As an open-theist, I see the latter not the former. However, for Dubya to view his task as president from the perspective of his faith is not wrong.
What is wrong is the view my grandparents took, that since so many people are, rightfully, praying for the president we should treat his policies as if they are from God.
This is wrong. Apart from an affirmation of the power of prayer, reality is complicated and its power need not be viewed as deterministic and so praying for our leaders shouldn't preclude evaluating their decision-making quality, political priorities...
dlw
I didn't say that I blindly believe that all the prez's decisions are from God. I just said that whatever influences his decisions are personal, just as whatever influences a non-Christian leader's decisions are personal, and should have no bearing on the nation's confidence in his leadership. His personal beliefs are no one else's business.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/6/2003 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | I would be more worried if Jesse Jackson or Hiliary Clinton believed that God wanted them to be president (now theres a dream ticket). But thats just me  , however, I have a question, if someone said they believed God wanted them to be a pastor, most Christians wouldn't bat an eye...
so whats the difference...
whether pastor or teacher, all are positions of power over another. The degree is simply different. If we are worried about Bush desiring to be president, we should be worried about the man desiring to be shepherd over the sheep... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/6/2003 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: whether you consider a pastor a vocation it is still a position of power, to be abused or used in a godly manner. As is a teacher. Putting the tag "vocation" on it does nothing to prevent people from abusing the position.
A godly pastor requires the study of scriptures, the vocation of pastor does not neccessarily mean so. | | Back to Top | | |
|
phil_five
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 29
| Posted Today 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Just my two cents worth here:
I think that as much good as government can do, it just isn't the church. And the church is God's instrument on earth, not government.
Thus, to put too much stock in what government does as being "of God" is misguided.
That, however, is not to say God can not and does not use governments, both secular and Christian.
This is totally opinion, but it seems so much of what the government has to do for our "safety" is not very self-sacrificing in nature. We want our government to do what is best for us (at least that is most of America'a attitude), and that often involves making decisions that seem to hurt others.
Therefore, while a policy-makers decisions can reflect his personal views, to say they are directly from God seems, to me, to be a bit hard to swallow. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Susan MN
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 11/28/2003 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | As an interesting side-note to God's role in the outcome of the 2000 election I submit the following information for your consideration.
Daniel Webster, a Florida State Representative, is a born-again Believer and through his involvement in an para-church organization which I have serious personal reservations regarding - Bill Gothard's home schooling organization, "The Advanced Training Institute" aka "ATI" - Mr. Webster knows Roger Magnuson, who just happens to be a strong born-again believer and my former Pastor at Straitgate Church in Minneapolis. (I was attending his church at the time of the 2000 election.)
Straitgate church is fundamentalist and, imho, legalistic, as you may expect seeing that the Pastor is affiliated with Bill Gothard, but nonetheless Roger Magnuson is an outspoken Born-Again Believer - his motto is "Unashamed of the Gospel of Christ".
BTW, when "put to the test" by members at the church who suddenly were enthralled with Calvinism Roger stated that he does not whole-heartedly subscribe to Calvin's five(?) points. (I forget for the moment the acroynom Calvin uses. The family who was newly enthralled with Calvinism/Reformed theology left the church.
Roger Magnuson also happens to be a senior partner at Dorsey & Whitney, Walter Mondale is another senior partner at that firm. Obviously, the firm has partners of both political parties because Roger has been involved in republican politics for years, but has never run for office and probably did himself in should he ever consider such a move by writing a book entitled "Are Gay Rights Right?" (His wife also once told me she made him promise he would never run for office before they got married! :-) This book has been given to entire state legislatures when gay rights legislation has been up for a vote and has contributed to gay rights bills failing. I was expecting the media to pick up on this during the 2000 election but didn't see any mention of it in the mainstream press.
Roger is a trial lawyer and represents Carl Polland, owner of the Twins, the Mall of America, General Mills... to name a few. He is known to have a "very impressive" win/loss record.
Okay - so Daniel Webster recommended Roger Magnuson to the Florida House and Roger wrote their Supreme Appeals Court brief (did I get the name of the court right?) for the 2000 election and was at the court when arguments were heard, prepared to speak before the Supreme Court if he had been called on to do so, but apparently the brief he wrote was sufficient because I don't recall that he actually spoke before the Supreme Court.
Roger most likely was part of a team the Florida House hired, but it was my understanding (and I could be wrong) that he was the lead counsel.
As we know, the Supreme Appeals Court sided with the Florida House and Bush won the election.
Food for thought when asking the question... Did God orchestrate Roger's role in that decision going in Bush's favor?
So what do you think DWL?
Susan Davis, MN | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/29/2003 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, did God orchestrate the decision of the Republican party to be strategic in contesting absentee ballots from Dem-leaning counties and not Repub-leaning counties?
If the Supremes had not settled the election, it probably would have gone to Congress, where Bush would have been eventually confirmed, but deals splitting the gains from the presidency would have been made. If you see politics as a manicheistic struggle between good and evil then the latter outcome would be undesirable. If you see politics as an arena of conflict whereby competing interests work out their differences as to which interests Gov't should serve then such an outcome would have better reflected the even-split in the US and, probably, helped prevent the unhealthy level of acrimony in our gov't right now, whereby the needed compromises/decisions are not being made expeditiously enough due to how politicians are not loving their enemies/adversaries.
I fail to see why the biographies of the actors is relevant to whether God was behind the way things got resolved. We face uncertainty and a need for discernment in tangling out how God moves in our lives. Yes, God does act in history, but we see but through a glass-darkly and should avoid reading into history what we want to see.
Mark Noll has a history of Evangelical Theology from Jonathon Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. He spends a lot of time on how the theology implicit in Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural was of a higher quality than the theological rationalizations of theologians from both the north and the south. It went deeper and did not align God with either side in the conflict.
Its an interesting read, I recommend it.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Akira Takahashi
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 9/30/2007 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Bush isn't the first person in history to have said that. I really enjoy history, and one of my favorite subjects of study is the Romanov empire, particularly that of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. Keep in mind that I know a lot more about how the royals functioned as a family and their response to the crisis in their country than I do about how each and every decision affected their allies, etc. However, Nicholas sincerely believed that God put him on the throne. For anyone interested in Russian history, we know that Tsar Nicholas II was a wonderful father and family man, however he was a terrible ruler. He hid from his people his son's hemophilia and in consequence gave no explanation to Rasputin's presence at the palaces. Moreover, when he learned of Rasputin's lifestyle, he still did not turn him away. Rasputin believed that if God gave out grace when you sinned, you should then sin as much as possible in order to collect as much of God's love and grace as possible. This gave him leeway to live his own immoral lifestyle.
Nicholas also persecuted the Jews. All you need to do is watch Fiddler on the Roof to know this. Christians could not marry outside of their faith and everyone who was not a Christian, particularly an Orthodox Christian, was considered bad for Russia.
Not to mention, every bad thing that happened to Russia, to him, and to his family was considered, by him, to be a part of God's will. In the end, he and his family were brutally murdered because he wouldn't act to correct anything in Russia because it was merely God's will.
I highly doubt that Bush would do that, but perhaps when some people hear a leader say, "God put me here," they automatically think of Nicholas and his folly. Or they are just prejudiced against Christians in general and are ready to degrade anyone who dares say that God wants anyone anywhere. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 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 |
|
|