 |
 | 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/1/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | God help us if we have men who rule in the name of God directly - and they are not Jesus Christ. This is close to blasphemy in my book and approaches the question, "Who speaks for God?" I believe that the civil authoity of God on earth was objectivly documented before witnesses in Sinai. It began with an indirect theocracy: God as king, however, everyman did what was right in their own eyes and didn't follow the Laws of the King. It evolved to the king God predicted in the Torah, David and his line. This civil government had 3 positions with the king subject to the Law, the priest performing the cerimonial law, and the prophet who spoke infallibly for God. (false falible prophets weren't to be tolerated but stoned) This civil government of God went astray and was utterly eliminated during the life of Jeremiah, going into captivity.
Since this time, we have never seen the restoration of the kingdom of God on the earth. The Macabees were a manifestation of a corrupted zeal and and love for God's Law. These Macabbees were neither "sons of David" nor "sons of Aaron or Zadok" and had no genetic claim to the authority of either the office of High Priest or King. Yet they took over both in the name of zeal and love for God, disobeying his direct and explicit laws; loving the temple and kingship that was run by imposters with no genetic legitimacy. This is the situation when Christ comes. Neither Caiaphas nor Annas have geneologies to give them legitimacy. The religious system that condemned Jesus was a sham.
As we read in Romans, God has given authority over the civil government to those he raises up now. They have no spiritual authority. This situation will continue until the coming of the King who will conquere all other civil authority and once again establish the kingdom of God in the civil and manifest sense in the world.
Men - Calvinists, Modern "Apostles," Hassidim, Popes, or anybody else that comes up with a theocracy is dangerous in my opinion because they have stolen the authority of God for themselves. If I had been an early settler, I would have moved from Massachusetts to Rhode Island. It was this concept of "direct spiritual government" with the civl sword that gave us the trials in which men and women were killed based upon "revelations" that they were witches. The inquisition, the 100 years war, the witch trials, and Cromwell are all examples of misguided and confused civil/spiritual authority. Calvin is responsible for what he wrote and did with this error. I have great sympathy with the "body count" thread.
Beyond this, there are many more than misguided Cavinists now that advocate theocracy. David Koresh is one small example of this. In the stream of Christianity that Dr. Boyd moves there are others that pray for Joel's army to take the civil sword, including C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner and many modern Apostles and Prophets. Men who claim to speak for God. It doesn't seem to matter much to me which men claim to be God's choice to establish His theocracy, they all end up abusing and exploiting people in the name of God - perversions. A Calvinist or a Charismatic with the civil sword, exercising it in God's name seems close to blashemy, neither side better than the other.
Let us be content to pray for our corrupted civil governments we wnjoy and wait for the true theocracy that has been promised.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/1/2004 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | here is what I posted over at TWeb, I don't think that it has been established that the kingdom of God is "not of this world". But I think it has been established that we see but through a glass darkly and hence are fallible in our conduct as to how we collectively let our lights shine in this world.
Its also heretical not to read the OT through the lense of the NT.
I read it and it does concern me. I have worked on a theology/philosophy paper for the past four and half years that is unintentionally a refutal of many of the religious princips of these people.
First, from the reformed perspective that the Reconstructionist theology is set out, everyone has a faith(what we tend to call world-views). As such, calling for a theonomy to supplant the rule of the faith of secular humanism over gov't is justified. Secular Gov't is ruled by a faith, just like any other and so supplanting the current faith with their own isn't seen as that big of a deal. I would counter-argue that the "secular humanism" of the US gov't does reflect the ecumenicism that we inherited from the 19th Ctry Evangelical revivals and is quite different from the "secular humanism" of France where the state serves the active role of discouraging displays of religiosity.
Second, It is important to bear in mind that the Bible is not a blue-print that sets out what is right conduct in every conceivable ethical situation.
That is why Christian Churches, similar to Judaism in many respects, has always had to rely on tradition in how it determined what right conduct should be prescribed for its members. Our sacred text is more condensed and we don't inculcate the need to study tradition and its history in great detail as with orthodox Judaism and we have traditionally had a lot more hierarchy in our organizations and since Constantine held much closer relations with Gov't for much bad and good.
But many protestant churches, particularly fundamentalists(and neo-evangelicals, who chose to interact more with popular culture, are often theologically fundamentalists with good manners.) conflate their traditions with scripture and then pronounce them inerrant, which circumvents debate over the direction of traditions with dissidents often written off as liberal christians. It also enthrones some issues as a-political when in fact any political action on them is quite political when one considers the opportunity costs and the need to consider the political lay of the land as well as the political compromises required to get others to support our issues.
It is the dearth of habits of political deliberation, not their inherent religiosity(albeit a focus on personal holiness does tend to discourage the formation of habits of political deliberation since politics is quite sordid and to be avoided if one wishes to stay as white as snow... The same is also true with a preoccupation with the end-times.) that makes them easier to be manipulated politically into believing that certain courses are a-political.
It is the manipulation/lack of deliberation that has permitted the cultural wars to become so inflamed, not the fact that one side's ideology is primarily based on religious doctrine. Historically, that has not been so much the case. Churches have for a long time in the US served as intermediary institutions between citizens and their gov'ts. Although, the use of absolutist language in the pursuit of fallible political changes, as was the case with the Social Gospel movement, did result in an unwillingness to compromise and learn from experience about the consequences of changes in law(However, these sorts of problems can be born out with "secular" movements as well.).
And so my brand of Christianity that influences my postings thoroughly embraces fallibilism in all realms of governance. It focuses on the problem of order. The need to work out reconciliations between order and freedom, change and continuity, hierarchy and democracy. The Bible is relevant for these sorts of dilemmas but does not provide us the solutions. Why? Because the issue of when human life begins didn't matter much for agrarian-based societies where another hand to help with the harvest was always appreciated and with strong social pressures toward marriage when pregnancies happen. Abortion/infanticide would only be desired by a prostitute. Likewise, the fact that constitutional homosexuality happens was not present in Biblical times where homosexual acts were by no means reflective of anyone's orientation and often raw displays of power or disdain toward the opposite sex.
These facts/changing social situations raise new theological/philosophical ethical questions that have to be answered for a Christian on the basis of both deliberation on scripture and study of the facts. And even then we are not teleologically led by the Holy Spirit to the correct determinations but have no better choice than to accept the fallible judgments of others beyond just ourselves to inform us regarding the rightness of our actions, but we must be open to the ongoing reformation as others bring forth knowledge that is relevant to the matters being considered.
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 4/1/2004 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
God help us if we have men who rule in the name of God directly - and they are not Jesus Christ. This is close to blasphemy in my book and approaches the question, "Who speaks for God?" I believe that the civil authoity of God on earth was objectivly documented before witnesses in Sinai. It began with an indirect theocracy: God as king, however, everyman did what was right in their own eyes and didn't follow the Laws of the King. It evolved to the king God predicted in the Torah, David and his line. This civil government had 3 positions with the king subject to the Law, the priest performing the cerimonial law, and the prophet who spoke infallibly for God. (false falible prophets weren't to be tolerated but stoned) This civil government of God went astray and was utterly eliminated during the life of Jeremiah, going into captivity.
Since this time, we have never seen the restoration of the kingdom of God on the earth. The Macabees were a manifestation of a corrupted zeal and and love for God's Law. These Macabbees were neither "sons of David" nor "sons of Aaron or Zadok" and had no genetic claim to the authority of either the office of High Priest or King. Yet they took over both in the name of zeal and love for God, disobeying his direct and explicit laws; loving the temple and kingship that was run by imposters with no genetic legitimacy. This is the situation when Christ comes. Neither Caiaphas nor Annas have geneologies to give them legitimacy. The religious system that condemned Jesus was a sham.
You are saying that God decreed a given political system? I thought God gave us free-will in this regard, as with when God permitted the Israeli people to have a king.
quote:
As we read in Romans, God has given authority over the civil government to those he raises up now. They have no spiritual authority. This situation will continue until the coming of the King who will conquere all other civil authority and once again establish the kingdom of God in the civil and manifest sense in the world.
As I recall, there is a tension in Christianity’s need to reconcile Paul’s admonition in Romans 13 for believers to accept and respect the authorities and rules of society as divinely established with Jesus’ alternative conception of the Church as given in Matthew 16:18-19. In the latter passage, Jesus promises that the Church will be empowered to beat down the gates of Hades. Here, the powers that be over the earth are portrayed as hostile to the will of God with the Church playing an important role to recapture control of the earth.
quote:
Men - Calvinists, Modern "Apostles," Hassidim, Popes, or anybody else that comes up with a theocracy is dangerous in my opinion because they have stolen the authority of God for themselves. If I had been an early settler, I would have moved from Massachusetts to Rhode Island. It was this concept of "direct spiritual government" with the civl sword that gave us the trials in which men and women were killed based upon "revelations" that they were witches. The inquisition, the 100 years war, the witch trials, and Cromwell are all examples of misguided and confused civil/spiritual authority. Calvin is responsible for what he wrote and did with this error. I have great sympathy with the "body count" thread.
One cannot be responsible for the deaths of others without being in power. However, given the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, foreswearing involvement in political governance/decision-making, basically lets others make more its decision and be more corrupted by its power.
quote:
Beyond this, there are many more than misguided Cavinists now that advocate theocracy. David Koresh is one small example of this. In the stream of Christianity that Dr. Boyd moves there are others that pray for Joel's army to take the civil sword, including C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner and many modern Apostles and Prophets. Men who claim to speak for God. It doesn't seem to matter much to me which men claim to be God's choice to establish His theocracy, they all end up abusing and exploiting people in the name of God - perversions. A Calvinist or a Charismatic with the civil sword, exercising it in God's name seems close to blashemy, neither side better than the other.
Let us be content to pray for our corrupted civil governments we wnjoy and wait for the true theocracy that has been promised.
The main issue isn't whether we can establish the millenium through political action or rule as a theocracy, but to what extent has experience shown that political (in)action is part of Christians' collective (mis)witness to the world, bringing down or setting up barriers to the sharing of the Gospel with others.
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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/3/2004 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | I also think Chance that you are basing your views on the positive of your side and the negative of the side you oppose. Judges can be bribed, most kings are not under God's rule and therefore can be very evil. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/4/2004 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | |
.Re: Politics & Christianity??
Very interesting article, DLW.
F.Y.I., Dr. Boyd is currently exploring related issues.
I think you (and, others) might enjoy these thought-provoking sermons:
.THE CROSS AND THE SWORD
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3279
quote:
John Earp wrote:
John 18:36 Jesus answered,
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Obviously, this doesn't mean necessarily that Christians aren't to get involved in politics at all, but rather that we must keep in mind that the full realization of the kingdom of God is in the age to come.
'
quote:
DLW wrote:
The main issue isn't whether we can establish the millenium through political action or rule as a theocracy, but to what extent has experience shown that political (in)action is part of Christians' collective (mis)witness to the world, bringing down or setting up barriers to the sharing of the Gospel with others.
.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:42 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 |
|
|