Response thread to Elmer's Brother
Hi EB,
So as not to be off-topic in your current posts I reposted here. I take it that you're:
1. a practicing Christian
2. Pro Israel
3. Pro America (a nationalist)
4. by 2 and 3, neoconservative
I don't believe that Christians act primarily for the benefit of the state nor Israel (hence the "I disagree with the nationalism and "Politely knocking on Taquiyya's door" bit). Instead I am convinced that we act out of God's interests, derived from a heart of worship to God, which in turn may or may not be in the mutual benefit of the state.
I also believe Christians don't have the moral obligation to protect the state of Israel. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus give this commandment.
Regarding my allergy to nationalism, I believe this was one of the root causes for the spiritual wandering of the Israelites found in the OT.
These are some of my reasons.
So as not to be off-topic in your current posts I reposted here. I take it that you're:
1. a practicing Christian
2. Pro Israel
3. Pro America (a nationalist)
4. by 2 and 3, neoconservative
I don't believe that Christians act primarily for the benefit of the state nor Israel (hence the "I disagree with the nationalism and "Politely knocking on Taquiyya's door" bit). Instead I am convinced that we act out of God's interests, derived from a heart of worship to God, which in turn may or may not be in the mutual benefit of the state.
I also believe Christians don't have the moral obligation to protect the state of Israel. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus give this commandment.
Regarding my allergy to nationalism, I believe this was one of the root causes for the spiritual wandering of the Israelites found in the OT.
These are some of my reasons.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Are you an American? Do you hate America?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/18 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Blessed in term of what? Great in terms of what? Who is "we" and what are "problems"? How did God view great in the OT? Wasn't it only through adherence to the law of Moses (ref: Josiah, Hezekiah) and heartfelt return to continueal worship of God even through difficulty and struggle?
"Don't like it" because it doesn't teach about God or because you believe in force-fed legislation like anti-abortion?
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Worshipping God is not just about morality. It's a varied, complex, Spirit-driven situational ethics (for the most part) approach to solving the multiple injustices in the world (even though it seems to accomplish nothing), affecting every facet, past present and future, of your life motivated by a future that will be spent with the Father.
So as a result, this is why I think the logical end to Christian growth is to follow in the footsteps of the missionary and apostle in Christ-like ministries. This is, to me, the ultimate expression of the faith that we must all strive for, NOT the distribution of conveniences and material goods (I might be making an assumption here, if I'm wrong please call me out).
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:17 PM — (Reply)
I don't mean to insult. If that is how you took it, I'm sorry - I guess that's just how I'm used to approaching issues where I have radically different opinions?
However the term is necessary to understand where you stand on certain issues such as American expansionism, War on Tyranny, and the like.
Neoconservativism has negative connotations for me, yes. It could be inferred as being mildly derogatory as it as a political philosophy contains many of the guiding principles of W's foreign and possibly domestic policy. The more extremist, IMO, sides of it include your latter guesses. Some examples from Wiki:
I agree with your first clause, and you do hold an orthodoxy to which I adhere to in regards to priorities:
However I want to take it a step further and reason that Christ, like God, wanted worship given only to him. Like I said in the post,
So no, I don't hate "America" if you're referring to the land. Neither do I hate "Americans", if there really were such a thing. The definition of what it means to be American is rapidly changing (as you probably already know) and will eventually, like all things, come to an end.
I love the earth that God has provided for us; yet globalism, accelerated by American policies, is destroying it. I wish peace for both the Israelite and the Muslim; yet American money is funding Israelites which further aggravates tensions and helps incite violence. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
[continued...]
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
I asked the questions for clarity sake not as a vindictive, just so you know.
I haven't made an altar with GW's picture if that's what you mean. I also realize this country has made mistakes. Our liberty is a gift of God not granted by the government. I hope to never tire in praying for my country, it's repentance, my repentance and for those in authority. I know too that a true patriot will oppose his government if it opposes God. I believe I should also care enough for this country to remind my countrymen who their true and rightful King is.
You can correct my grammar if you want...I know it's not the best.
I think that I should also honor God ordained authority. (not idol worship)Romans 13 e.g. The government is ordained by God to wield the sword against evil when necessary.
Clarify why you won't also place blame on the radical Islamists as well as what you perceive as American imperialism? After all I was a jack booted thug for 20 years.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/18 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
Ah, patriotism is the word I was looking for in the previous post.
But hold that thought. Define "true patriot" and "countrymen".
I don't see where such verbage is used. This kind of authority is only wielded by God himself, made apparent in the OT based on God's omnipotence regarding the possibility for non-Israelite repentance, no? Your second sentence is basically saying government, being ordained by God, can thereby usurp Jesus' command of loving others by order of authority. Government > Jesus' commands
Chomsky has thoroughly demonstrated the historical use of American force typically as dogs of ideological, often highly un-Christlike agendas. While I'm not sure about what you mean by not placing blame on American imperialism, I won't place blame on radical Islamists if it means posting about their atrocities and then making a mockery of murderousness. Like Cate said, their actions speak for themselves (unfortunately). No sense in beating a rotting, stinky horse when you've got much greater issues to confront, such as waywardness (1 Cor 5), apostasy (2 Peter 2), and conspiracy (Ezekiel 22:23-29) - which all hold imperatives for the formation of a complete orthopraxis.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
Sorry, meant to say implausibility for non-Israelite repentance.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 09:06 PM — (Reply)
Format error - please read 3 before 2.
I'd also like to note that nationalism is a challenge often issued by the neoconservative elite to assure American uniformity of opinion.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:25 PM — (Reply)
Blessed in that we can worship as we want. I have been to countries where Christians are not able to worship when, where and how they want. My in-laws are missionaries in such a country.
Blessed in that I can diagree with the government, I have freedom of speech etc.
My wife and I home school, I can teach them about the Lord and not fear the government. Totalitarin countries would not allow such a thing.
I am not referring to material goods when I say blessed.
So are you an American? Do you live in America?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/18 @ 08:28 PM — (Reply)
Worshipping as we want doesn't necessarily mean it's meaningful to God. In fact, if you look at Acts, the times of greatest church growth and steadfastness was when the church was persecuted.
So, as far as it has promoted backsliding and apostasy on the national scale, I see it as also being a curse.
Freedom of speech w/in the government is being/has been stifled, as is disagreement via accusations of lack of patriotism. I'm sure this is a trend bound to continue, too, as Unpatriotism is harmful to the establishment and is viewed as radical anarchism.
Okay, I'm getting your tone a little better. Yes, I'm "American" in the sense that I was born/raised in America and currently live in Chicago.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)
you mean force fed legislation like abortion?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/18 @ 08:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 08:59 PM — (Reply)
I thought the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade was force fed. The people can no longer decide via voting etc. That seems force fed to me...judicial fiat?
Chicago - went through training in Waukegan. Tried to stay off of State St. I was told it was a rough neighborhood in Chicago.
Are you pro-abortion? and if so what Scripture do you use to justify it?
I understand that persecution can strengthen the Church. It is happening where my in-laws are working.
I wouldn't call someone who disagrees with the government unpatriotic but I would question why you don't think the government would want to protect itself given the majority of Americans like this brand of freedom. (whether it's orthodox Christianity or not)
I prefer this clarity over agreement.
Comment by — 2006/09/18 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This from Clarke's Commentary: As far as I have learned and been taught this is an orthodox view of this passage.
NOTES ON CHAP 13.
To see with what propriety the apostle introduces the important subjects which he handles in this chapter, it is necessary to make a few remarks on the circumstances in which the Church of God then was.
It is generally allowed that this epistle was written about the year of our Lord 58, four or five years after the edict of the Emperor Claudius, by which all the Jews were banished from Rome. And as in those early times the Christians were generally confounded with the Jews, it is likely that both were included in this decree.
For what reason this edict was issued does not satisfactorily appear.
Suetonius tells us that it was because the Jews were making continual disturbances under their leader Christus. (See the note on Acts xviii. 2.) That the Jews were in general an uneasy and seditious people is clear enough from every part of their own history. They had the most rooted aversion to the heathen government; and it was a maxim with them that the world was given to the Israelites; that they should have supreme rule every where, and that the Gentiles should be their vassals. (This sounds like our own times and the radical Muslims) With such political notions, grounded on their native restlessness, it is no wonder if in several instances they gave cause of suspicion to the Roman government, who would be glad of an opportunity to expel from the city persons whom they considered dangerous to its peace and security; nor is it unreasonable on this account to suppose, that the Christians, under a notion of being the peculiar people of God, and the subjects of his kingdom alone, might be in danger of being infected with those unruly and rebellious sentiments: therefore the apostle shows them that they were, notwithstanding their honours and privileges as Christians, bound by the strongest obligations of conscience to be subject to the civil government.
The judicious commentator adds: "I cannot forbear observing the admirable skill and dexterity with which the apostle has handled the subject. His views in writing are always comprehensive on every point; and he takes into his thoughts and instructions all parties that might probably reap any benefit by them. As Christianity was then growing, and the powers of the world began to take notice of it, it was not unlikely that this letter might fall into the hands of the Roman magistrates. And whenever that happened it was right, not only that they should see that Christianity was no favourer of sedition, but likewise that they should have an opportunity of reading their own duty and obligations. But as they were too proud and insolent to permit themselves to be instructed in a plain, direct way, therefore the apostle with a masterly hand, delineates and strongly inculcates the magistrate's duty; while he is pleading his cause with the subject, and establishing his duty on the most sure and solid ground, he dexterously sides with the magistrate, and vindicates his power against any subject who might have imbibed seditious principles, or might be inclined to give the government any disturbance; and under this advantage he reads the magistrate a fine and close lecture upon the nature and ends of civil government. A way of conveyance so ingenious and unexceptionable that even Nero himself, had this epistle fallen into his hands, could not fail of seeing his duty clearly stated, without finding any thing servile or flattering on the one hand, or offensive or disgusting on the other.
"The attentive reader will be pleased to see with what dexterity, truth, and gravity the apostle, in a small compass, affirms and explains the foundation, nature, ends, and just limits of the magistrate's authority, while he is pleading his cause, and teaching the subject the duty and obedience he owes to the civil government
Verse 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.] This is a very strong saying, and most solemnly introduced; and we must consider the apostle as speaking, not from his own private judgment, or teaching a doctrine of present expediency, but declaring the mind of God on a subject of the utmost importance to the peace of the world; a doctrine which does not exclusively belong to any class of people, order of the community, or official situations, but to every soul; and, on the principles which the apostle lays down, to every soul in all possible varieties of situation, and on all occasions. And what is this solemn doctrine? It is this: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Let every man be obedient to the civil government under which the providence of God has cast his lot.
For there is no power but of God As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil government is of him; for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated. In ancient times, God, in an especial manner, on many occasions appointed the individual who was to govern; and he accordingly governed by a Divine right, as in the case of Moses, Joshua, the Hebrew judges, and several of the Israelitish kings. In after times, and to the present day, he does that by a general superintending providence which he did before by especial designation. In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God. But it has been asked: If the ruler be an immoral or profligate man, does he not prove himself thereby to be unworthy of his high office, and should he not be deposed? I answer, No: if he rule according to the constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. He may be irregular in his own private life; he may be an immoral man, and disgrace himself by an improper conduct: but if he rule according to the law; if he make no attempt to change the constitution, nor break the compact between him and the people; there is, therefore, no legal ground of opposition to his civil authority, and every act against him is not only rebellion in the worst sense of the word, but is unlawful and absolutely sinful.
Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.
When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government; but I contend that no personal misconduct in the ruler, no immorality in his own life, while he governs according to law, can justify either rebellion against him or contempt of his authority. For his political conduct he is accountable to his people; for his moral conduct he is accountable to God, his conscience, and the ministers of religion. A king may be a good moral man, and yet a weak, and indeed a bad and dangerous prince. He may be a bad man, and stained with vice in his private life, and yet be a good prince. SAUL was a good moral man, but a bad prince, because he endeavoured to act contrary to the Israelitish constitution: he changed some essential parts of that constitution, as I have elsewhere shown; (see the note on Acts xiii. 22;) he was therefore lawfully deposed. James the Second was a good moral man, as far as I can learn, but he was a bad and dangerous prince; he endeavoured to alter, and essentially change the British constitution, both in Church and state, therefore he was lawfully deposed. It would be easy, in running over the list of our own kings, to point out several who were deservedly reputed good kings, who in their private life were very immoral. Bad as they might be in private life, the constitution was in their hands ever considered a sacred deposit, and they faithfully preserved it, and transmitted it unimpaired to their successors; and took care while they held the reins of government to have it impartially and effectually administered.
It must be allowed, notwithstanding, that when a prince, howsoever heedful to the laws, is unrighteous in private life, his example is contagious; morality, banished from the throne, is discountenanced by the community; and happiness is diminished in proportion to the increase of vice. On the other hand, when a king governs according to the constitution of his realms and has his heart and life governed by the laws of his God, he is then a double blessing to his people; while he is ruling carefully according to the laws, his pious example is a great means of extending and confirming the reign of pure morality among his subjects. Vice is discredited from the throne, and the profligate dare not hope for a place of trust and confidence, (however in other respects he may be qualified for it,) because he is a vicious man.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/18 @ 09:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 10:18 PM — (Reply)
IMO it's more force fed when you're delegating restrictive morality in place of God. As a Christian I believe our stance should be pro-life, but at the same time I don't believe we should force that opinion or morality down the throats of others who think otherwise. If the current social environment is any indication, God is allowing this in the US and abroad but biblically speaking is clearly morally against it.
Under freedom of choice women are allowed to stand for life a priori, or (hopefully) learn from the mistake of having an abortion later. (All things are permissible but not necessarily beneficial 1 Cor 10:23)
That must've been a while ago, then. State St has become a main thoroughfare downtown and extends towards the Cellular field neighborhood now... lots of development
I agree, it's in the government's interests to protect itself. However, it's not necessarily in the best interests of the people, orthodox Christianity nonwithstanding. For example, the increasing wealth gap in the country has resulted in some calling the US "the richest 3rd world country in the world". Now, add in Christianity to the mix and you just get a heretical/backslidden state. Sure - the majority of Americans "like this brand of freedom" now, but I think historically it's really just another microcosm of how there's most always been a conflict of interest b/t what God wants and what we - as fallen, sinful beings in need of redemption - want.
I enthusiastically agree! A false unity is a far cry from the truth.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 10:12 PM — (Reply)
I agree with the idea of pacifism - I don't espouse anarchy, although I would call myself an anarchist. The label just doesn't fit, because by route of standing for God first, the Christian might have a conflict of interest with the government - as was demonstrated time and time again through the OT prophets.
I say refer to the Weimar-era German church and Galatians 6:11-13 for a more proper balance of viewing God-ordained authority:
There's another quote I'm trying to remember about obeying the law of the land that goes something like "Obey the law; yet, do even more than that - do good, be of such a moral character that others may see and be saved".
I'll have to address some of the broader parallels you mentioned tomorrow. Thanks EB
Comment by albert— 2006/09/18 @ 10:36 PM — (Reply)
I believe you may have misapplied I Cor 10. Paul was referring to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. He was dealing with schisms in the church. Applying this to a civil law I believe would be a stretch. As I wouldn't want to cause another to stumble I would try to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols. So I would oppose a law that would cause someone to stumble, such as abortion.
Italicized from Clarke's commentary:
Verse 23. All things are lawful for me I may lawfully eat all kinds of food, but all are not expedient; ou panta sumferei? It would not be becoming in me to eat of all, because I should by this offend and grieve many weak minds. See the notes on 1 Cor. vi. 12, &c.
Verse 24. Let no man seek his own, Let none, for his private gratification or emolument, disturb the peace or injure the soul of another.
Let every man live, not for himself, but for every part of the great human family with which he is surrounded.
Philipians 2:5 would apply here.
In Deuteronomy God exhorts Israel to choose life that it might be well with you. God was driving home the importance of life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose life...choose blessing.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/19 @ 05:04 AM — (Reply)
Hey EB,
I don't believe it's a misapplication at all. Allow me to illustrate, because the saying is quoted in 1 Cor 6:12 as well, in the context of sexual immorality:
By this, I believe it is more than likely that this saying was used not only in the specific sense of sexual immorality and eating rituals, but had ramifications applying to the general standard of Christian living.
I believe it has direct correlation with causing a brother to stumble as well, but a greater correlation could be made in the sense of the scope of the book - that is, taking on the likeness of Christ as a witness to others in Corinth in general. It makes greater sense in the context of the book if it's looked at from the broader scope of what Paul is trying to accomplish in his letter.
Also see 6:33:
Again, it applies in the more general sense of being an example to all, not just prevention of being a stumbling block to others.
I can't really follow the line of reasoning here, even when applied to non-believers. In the sense of Philippians 2:5, what was Jesus' response to the prostitute? Didn't she approach him after her sin had been committed? Isn't that indicative of freedom of choice, which God is even now currently allowing? So I agree,
So the issue doesn't become about life - God can and will determine that on his own. Just look at the situation in Calcutta.
Besides, if your intent is to truly "work on frontlines of counterculture", as it were, would not the best way to witness to the pro-abortion feminist liberal be to stand on her side? After all, doesn't it cover both bases by default?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/19 @ 12:09 PM — (Reply)
I meant Phil.2:3..the whole passage is great though
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/19 @ 05:06 AM — (Reply)
I'd also be interested in your biblical justification for being an anarchis.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/19 @ 05:29 AM — (Reply)
Well, as I mentioned earlier,
Jesus himself espoused a type of anarchy, but didn't support open rebellion. Call it a kind of libertarian socialism, if you will. He commanded obedience to authority, but not "honor" in the sense that I think you're using it. See Matthew 22:15-21:
Paul also warns, in Eph 6:12:
Yet at the same time, in the same passage, encouraging slaves to
So as I was saying, it's a form of anarchy because it regards God as a greater authority over government. But it's not because government obedience is encouraged to make a better witness to others.
What's your take? Which do you think is more beneficial to the feminist pro-choice unbeliever, pro-life or abortion? Which is more sensible, the authority of God or the authority of man?
In that sense patriotism makes it difficult to discern who is wrong or right. That's why I'd call myself a humanist instead (although that label doesn't fit quite well either).
Comment by albert— 2006/09/19 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)
By all means, EB, I'm all ears. And I'm also wondering what you think about my apologetics offerings here; why no response? Do they sound logical? Are they justified?
Comment by albert— 2006/09/19 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
I was speaking of Dr. Pino
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/20 @ 05:10 AM — (Reply)
Barry made a comment regarding Dr. Pino followed by Cate referring to the Dr.'s misison ..I should have qualified
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/20 @ 05:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by albert— 2006/09/20 @ 06:36 AM — (Reply)
So if one thinks abortion is murder how does it not cause a woman to stumble?
Well if obeying the authority as a better witness and
Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.[1]The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers").
this seems an oxymoron.
You think Jesus advocated not having any rulers or form of government...I find that a big stretch...
I also find it a stretch to think that by supporting a woman having an abortion is a godly pursuit when I can support her in a way that encourages her to have her baby.
I guess if you don't believe in a government nor it's rules/laws it shouldn't surprise me that you think this
Tell me Albert did you have a colored mohawk and listen to the Clash in high school? LOL
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/20 @ 05:27 AM — (Reply)
I don't discern right and wrong based on patriotism.
Please understand the tone of this question is to clarify not a vindictive.
Do you find it difficult to commit to any one label/system? The Humanist Manifesto calls itself a religion. Would you call yourself a Christian Humanist?
I know what honor means:
It is God who gives true honor or "promotion". Psalms 75:6,7, NKJV. "For exaltation comes neither from the east nor from the west nor from the south. But God is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another."
It is good to give honor to each other. Romans 12:10, TLB. "Love each other with brotherly affection and take delight in honoring each other."
Honoring parents is one of God's commandments. Exodus 20:12, TLB. "Honor your father and mother, that you may have a long, good life in the land the Lord your God will give you."
The following is the orthodox Christian view.
Romans 13
Authority is the lawful right to enforce obedience. It is the power to influence or command behavior. In order to have authority over someone they must submit to your authority..hence Paul's exhortation to submit.
God is the ultimate authority, and there is no authority except from God. Citizens are clearly commanded to be in subjection to governing authorities according to Romans 13.
Government has a rightful authority from God that we must submit to, unless the government orders us to do something that is in opposition to God's law. In those circumstances Acts 4:19,20 teaches us to obey God before man. Acts 4:19,20 - But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. In these verses, the apostles Peter and John had been commanded by the government to no longer speak or teach about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter and John knew it was against God's law to not speak about Jesus Christ, so they did not submit to the government authority.
Comment by — 2006/09/20 @ 06:09 AM — (Reply)
EB, please re-read comment 21. It is vital for you in understanding how I believe these two things - the "form of anarchism" and obeying authority are not two mutually exclusive concepts. It is a paradox.
Again, this isn't my viewpoint. I believe Jesus and his disciples complied to authority insofar as it didn't conflict with God's commands and that we should follow their examples. But Jesus redefines authority by stating God - as opposed to government (Caesar for context) - as supreme authority. (ref: Phil. 2:5-8 in comment 18)
The key idea I was connecting this to was 1 Cor 9:22:
In the previous post I gave the example of a "pro-abortion feminist liberal" (assumed to be non-Christian in comment 18). How do you go about being a witness to her when her sense of morality conflict with yours?
Well, here's where the paradox of situational ethics applies: if she were to, say, become pregnant by nonconventional means, then you could, like you implicated, go out of your way to ensure that she and her child might be cared for. This would seem to be a great way to serve as a witness.
Moreover, even if she did end up going through the abortion, no doubt she may probably end up going through a depressive stage where she realizes her error in killing her own. There again you might be able to serve as a witness, instead of demonizing her.
I think this is captures some of the essence of the "love your enemies" approach.
Again, I believe in abiding with law or "believe in government" to the extent that it doesn't conflict with God's commands or authority.
Heh not really actually I was the typical clean cut straight-lace who struggled with authority.
Comment by — 2006/09/20 @ 07:04 AM — (Reply)
I hope you don't see my questions as being vindictive or accusational, either. If it does come off that way, please tell me.
But, I think your first assertion is hard to verify. Patriotism and its entailing honor system is the crux of our disagreement for good reason. Perhaps we disagree on the practical definition of honor:
I believe honor occurs at a cost; more spefically, when you become less, and the person you honor becomes more. Hence your usage of the TLB (yet another new translation, all of which I take issue, but that's another discussion). Refer to the NIV and KJV translations:
(and in Exodus 20:12 the TLB makes a key contextual error:)
Your post continued:
My emphasis is exactly the last sentence. But I also add this - when we are living in the Spirit, by default we will be living good, holy, and righteous lives instead of merely "civil" or "civic" lives. It's somewhat ironic that the passage I was looking for was in your blog tagline:
This, of all people, coming from someone who cut off the ear of a soldier with his sword.
Yes, that is the paradox of situational ethics(!) - living by the Spirit in recognizing God as supreme and not only acting on his commands first and foremost, but allowing the Spirit to take over every aspect of your life - in essence, dying to yourself (through risking gov't disobedience) so that you might live (for God's glory).
Due to the system of paradoxes I find it hard to label myself (or Jesus for that matter) under any specific system, although situationally I might come out being more one thing than another. This is because of the paradox of Spirit-based living.
I think this might be primarily due to conflicting ideas of morality within each of the individual thought systems.
Comment by albert— 2006/09/20 @ 07:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/09/20 @ 10:00 AM — (Reply)