Faith and Politics

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Secondly is a teaching I heard from W. Nee. The gist of the message was that the Lord's first coming solved all of our problems on a personal level, but none of society's problems will ever be solved until His second coming. There's much truth in what he taught.

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me. We often say that the only way to bring peace to this earth is to bring Christ back. That part is true. However, many of the LC leaders continue on to say that what the UN and all other organizations are doing is useless because it will never bring peace. Also many in the Recovery interpret this statement as "All we need to do is to grow in life to bring Christ back; anything else we do is useless." ie... it is useless to help the poor, help stop wars, help with non-profit organizations that make the world a better place to live. Because the only way to resolve all problems in society is Christ's second coming. I have to disagree with this. This is a dangerous statement. We are living in a country that is *relatively* safe and wealthy because someone before us did something to make this country a better place to live. They didn't just live Christ and pray. They fought in wars for our freedom. Many lives were sacrificed. Not just from wars, but those who were part of various movements (ie. the civil rights movement). I am grateful to those we *did* something to make our society a better place to live. They did not just *wait* for Christ's second return.

We need to be careful when we say *none* of society's problems can be solved until Christ's second coming. Many problems can be solved without Christ's second coming, but not all. I hope as good citizens, we will contribute to the solving of some of the problems in society.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me.

This is an area where Christians agree to disagree. It is not too dissimilar to the supposed reaction to persecution. In church history some Christians have taken the Lord's pattern as a lamb to suffer martyrdom willingly. Other believers, like the Waldensians, took King David as their pattern to arm themselves for battle in defense of their women and children.

Talking to one brother years ago, he commented that we all have a "line in the sand." We may all say, like Peter did, that we will die willingly as the Lord did, as a lamb prepared for slaughter, until they begin to rape your wife and young daughter, as so often happened during the dark ages by the Papal emissaries, and once they cross that line, all passivity ceases.

I personally don't think some defining "way" is mandated in the scripture. The Lord told His disciples, when facing persecutions, to take no thought what to say, because our Heavenly Father will give us words to say, and actions to take.

Anyways I digress. My point is that the Lord is not "one size fits all." He directs different brothers in diverse ways.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me. We often say that the only way to bring peace to this earth is to bring Christ back. That part is true. However, many of the LC leaders continue on to say that what the UN and all other organizations are doing is useless because it will never bring peace. Also many in the Recovery interpret this statement as "All we need to do is to grow in life to bring Christ back; anything else we do is useless." ie... it is useless to help the poor, help stop wars, help with non-profit organizations that make the world a better place to live. Because the only way to resolve all problems in society is Christ's second coming. I have to disagree with this. This is a dangerous statement. We are living in a country that is *relatively* safe and wealthy because someone before us did something to make this country a better place to live. They didn't just live Christ and pray. They fought in wars for our freedom. Many lives were sacrificed. Not just from wars, but those who were part of various movements (ie. the civil rights movement). I am grateful to those we *did* something to make our society a better place to live. They did not just *wait* for Christ's second return.

We need to be careful when we say *none* of society's problems can be solved until Christ's second coming. Many problems can be solved without Christ's second coming, but not all. I hope as good citizens, we will contribute to the solving of some of the problems in society.

I'm with you here, Truth. The Bible clearly commands us to "do good works" and included in those works are helping the poor and seeking justice. That covers a lot of territory.

Of course, the natural thought is to use the force of law to accomplish these goals (that's what political means ultimately do, leverage the force of law).

However, we know that the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts is more important than the force of man's law. However, often the effect of changed hearts is changed law, which is definitely a benefit. So there is some gray area. Our work is spiritual. But it has practical effects in this age. That's what salt of the earth means.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm with you here, Truth. The Bible clearly commands us to "do good works" and included in those works are helping the poor and seeking justice. That covers a lot of territory.

Of course, the natural thought is to use the force of law to accomplish these goals (that's what political means ultimately do, leverage the force of law).

However, we know that the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts is more important than the force of man's law. However, often the effect of changed hearts is changed law, which is definitely a benefit. So there is some gray area. Our work is spiritual. But it has practical effects in this age. That's what salt of the earth means.

I agree. I'll accept this definition that Politics refers to the means by which we accomplish the goals of seeking justice and helping the poor. We certainly have been admonished in the NT to do both of these. The question becomes have we been admonished to use political means to accomplish them or not? I think this is a bizarre question that stems from super spirituality (to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good).

As Christians we are trained in the way of righteousness. We are given a model of God's Holy laws in the Bible. We are destined to rule and reign with Christ. The constitution of this country was specifically written to give us both the right and responsibility to take part in the governance. You could of course do this while making sure you didn't reference Bible verses, but that is an unfair requirement. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that we should hide our faith or beliefs while walking in this world.

I would agree that much of what is done in the political arena is designed to smear the Bible or discredit it. But that just means it is even more incumbent on believers to stand up for what they believe and stop being "silent". To teach Christians to be a silent voice in this country is, imho, the worship of dumb idols.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Disciple

to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good

Love it.

Welcome Disciple. Great post. Please consider signing up for full membership in the forum. But please continue to post, regardless.

Igzy

[Cal]

It's important to consider that perhaps the reason the Bible doesn't give us examples of using politics to accomplish spiritual results is that democratic advocacy was not exactly the norm in ancient days. The aristocracy had political influence because they had money. But the idea of a lowly nobody having a "vote" was a foreign concept to the ancients.

If the Lord had told a bunch of fisherman to start a political advocacy organization they would have really been scratching their heads.

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

[OBW]

A different way of putting some of the arguments against trying to force laws to reflect Christian morality:

I have a command to love others. To care for the widow and orphan. And so forth.

And I can do it by doing it myself, or with a group of like-minded Christians.

Or I can do it by legislating that you give up some of your funds to do it. (Seems that there is a political party that already does a lot of that. And a lot of Christians doubt and claim of being "Christian" for some of them.)

Same goes for morality laws. I don't disagree with legislating what society agrees with as necessary rules. But to legislate Christian morality is to exact human justice now for issues that God will judge them for later. Things like adultery. And if you say that you wouldn't legislate that, then how do you decide where to draw the line between secular and "spiritual" laws?

Be as involved in politics as you are lead. Be honest and righteous in it. "Vote your conscience." But don't legislate the BEMA for the benefit of the heathen.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

A different way of putting some of the arguments against trying to force laws to reflect Christian morality:

I have a command to love others. To care for the widow and orphan. And so forth.

And I can do it by doing it myself, or with a group of like-minded Christians.

Or I can do it by legislating that you give up some of your funds to do it. (Seems that there is a political party that already does a lot of that. And a lot of Christians doubt and claim of being "Christian" for some of them.)

Same goes for morality laws. I don't disagree with legislating what society agrees with as necessary rules. But to legislate Christian morality is to exact human justice now for issues that God will judge them for later. Things like adultery. And if you say that you wouldn't legislate that, then how do you decide where to draw the line between secular and "spiritual" laws?

Be as involved in politics as you are lead. Be honest and righteous in it. "Vote your conscience." But don't legislate the BEMA for the benefit of the heathen.

As usual, OBW makes the point better, and with more tact, than I (though I don't know what BEMA is?).

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's important to consider that perhaps the reason the Bible doesn't give us examples of using politics to accomplish spiritual results is that democratic advocacy was not exactly the norm in ancient days. The aristocracy had political influence because they had money. But the idea of a lowly nobody having a "vote" was a foreign concept to the ancients.

If the Lord had told a bunch of fisherman to start a political advocacy organization they would have really been scratching their heads.

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

There's a difference between being an engaged democratic citizen as a Christian and invoking God as the basis for one's argument.

Your historical point doesn't hold up.

I'm not advocating that people don't get involved in politics. I'm saying they shouldn't use the Lord's name when they do so.

Peter

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

I grew up in a liberal family and today I am a liberal: a bleeding heart, leftist liberal. To me, it has nothing to do with my faith, which I would categorize as conservative, evangelical fundamentalist. I vote as a citizen, not as a Christian. I use logic and think as a taxpayer and a human. I find both current major parties and their candidates to be dismaying, but I go in and vote anyway.

Today, occasionally I write a letter to the paper. But mostly my interests and efforts lie elsewhere. In the past, however, I got very involved in elections, causes, and debates about current events. And I did so as a fellow citizen who happened to be a Christian. I appreciate living in a free society and interacting at whatever level I want to. And also that I can vote anonymously and don't have to wear my bias on my sleeve (and believe me, we are all biased. Only God is "fair and balanced").

I would like to reference Igzy's comments on Christians using politics to influence democratic society, and that not attempting such is "irresponsible and backward". John the Baptist tried to influence Herod and got imprisoned. While he was there, he got impatient waiting for Jesus' influence in the political process, and sent messengers with a rather pointed question: "Are You the Christ, or should we (read: I) look for another?"

Jesus told the messengers, "Tell John what you see. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Jesus didn't say, "John, if this was a democracy I would try to influence the political process, but since we're in an autocracy too bad for you. I must limit Myself to 'good works' ". No, I think Jesus' kingdom was on another level. Different from John, different from Herod, different from democracy. He wasn't trying to change the rules, nor enforce them (see His "Man, who appointed me a judge over you?" in Luke 12:14 -- contrast to Solomon's grandson Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:4: "Oh, if only I could be a judge!").

There was an interesting song I heard in the early '70s. It was from a "rock opera". In one scene Jesus was coming into Jerusalem, and the crowds were gathering in anticipation: the pretender Herod would be tossed out (the line of David had been absent power for centuries), the Romans as well, and the glory of Israel would return. The crowd, including the disciples, were expecting "power and glory" from Jesus' ascension.

Jesus sings "Neither you, Simon, nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews, nor Judas, nor the twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes, nor doomed Jerusalem itself, understand what power is, understand what glory is, understand at all."

The more I read the Bible, and interact with Christians, the more I sense this. We don't understand at all. If we did, the world would look very different.

Here is a link to the song; the quote is at 3:15. I was reading Igzy's and Disciple's comments and suddenly these lyrics started playing in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfAIt1spGo

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to reference Igzy's comments on Christians using politics to influence democratic society, and that not attempting such is "irresponsible and backward". John the Baptist tried to influence Herod and got imprisoned. While he was there, he got impatient waiting for Jesus' influence in the political process, and sent messengers with a rather pointed question: "Are You the Christ, or should we (read: I) look for another?"

Jesus told the messengers, "Tell John what you see. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Jesus didn't say, "John, if this was a democracy I would try to influence the political process, but since we're in an autocracy too bad for you. I must limit Myself to 'good works' ". No, I think Jesus' kingdom was on another level. Different from John, different from Herod, different from democracy. He wasn't trying to change the rules, nor enforce them (see His "Man, who appointed me a judge over you?" in Luke 12:14 -- contrast to Solomon's grandson Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:4: "Oh, if only I could be a judge!").

That's an interesting interpretation, but I think you are reading a lot into it. To say that John the Baptist's experience was evidence that we should not petition government to do what is right is a stretch. John antagonized a self-serving leader who abused his power and killed him. That's different than saying petitioning government is wrong. Like I said, petitioning government was probably always a dodgy matter in those days. But it ain't necessarily so.

Obviously Jesus' kingdom is on its own level. It is above politics. It is also above marriage, child-rearing, healthy diet and exercise, and cooperating with neighbors. But that doesn't mean we don't employ good human behavior in those situations and just resort to being spiritual. We do both. Likewise, we pray about the government and live godly lives, and we also can engage in political action.

The key is wisdom and discretion, not black or white. We are spiritual beings and also human beings. God doesn't resent the earthly, just the earthly without the heavenly. He, after all, created the earthly. As C.S. said, "He likes it. He made it."

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

I agree. I'll accept this definition that Politics refers to the means by which we accomplish the goals of seeking justice and helping the poor. We certainly have been admonished in the NT to do both of these. The question becomes have we been admonished to use political means to accomplish them or not? I think this is a bizarre question that stems from super spirituality (to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good).

As Christians we are trained in the way of righteousness. We are given a model of God's Holy laws in the Bible. We are destined to rule and reign with Christ. The constitution of this country was specifically written to give us both the right and responsibility to take part in the governance. You could of course do this while making sure you didn't reference Bible verses, but that is an unfair requirement. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that we should hide our faith or beliefs while walking in this world....

Wow. This argument is so amazingly smug and lacking in Christian humilty. I'm sorry. I don't say this intellectually - I have just personally experienced - myself and GOOD christians I care for - be bulldozed by such arguments (not just in the LC). So I am going to respond with some rigor.

Here's you're argument:

1) As a Christian, I know "justice" and "righteousness" (if you don't believe me, trust me, "I was trained in the way of it").

2) I have the blueprint for justice (God's laws, memorized word-for-word. Forget that Jesus told many people who had God's laws memorized that they were "workers of lawlessness").

3) The Constitution says its okay for me to participate with my all-knowingness.

(*oh yeah, I forgot the part that I'm destined to rule and reign, so I should get some practice now)

Of course, I editorialized. But that's what you argued. Straight up.

Do you realize I could have made your exact same argument, word for word, even if Christ had never accomplished what He has and as if Christ isn't doing what He is doing???????? In what way, if at all, do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument????????.


You set up a straw-man of the “over-spiritual do-nothing.” These people exist. Yet, not a SINGLE one has posted on this thread. NO ONE on this thread has advocated that. The only person on this thread who has advocated not bringing God into politics was me – and I wasn’t advocating doing nothing or keeping silent. Thus, I can only surmise that your post was directed at my posts. Except, my argument was nuanced and mindful of both sides of the argument. So lets be clear and talk to each other rather than to imagined arguments.

Straw men are easy to create. There is another straw-man that I could just as easily create. Here’s the recipe:

Take an extremely complicated and delicate human AND spiritual concept such as “justice,” reduce it to a few concrete issues, use some Bible verses to support your position on that narrow issue, and then commence with self-righteousess and condemnation of others. Oh, and pass laws based on that which will cover people who don’t even share your faith.

Whatever else get’s accomplished by invoking God in human politics, two things DEFINITELY get accomplished: 1) self-righteousness and 2) condemnation of others. I am not saying they were the mindful goal, but they are the only definite consequences. The other benefits – such as your un-defined notion of “justice,” or any other supposed “goal,” are debatable as to whether they were achieved. There are a number of other possible negative consequences too, though these are also debatable. But these two things are guarantees.

The same cannot be said of other kinds of advocacy or seeking justice as Christians in our society: non-political ministries to the poor, to would-be mothers, to struggling marriages, to kids who aren’t getting educated. These things don’t necessarily entail self-righteousness or condemnation. It might still be debatable how successful we are. But I trust the motives far more, since there isn’t the built-in guaranteed result of self-righteousness and condemnation.

Let’s talk about this “justice” you invoke to justify bringing God into politics. First, WHOSE Justice? God’s? If so, why aren’t we trying to pass crimes against lust, hating our brother, coveting. These are all SINS. In fact, they are more directly tied to the Ten Commandments than, say, homosexuality. And why aren’t we advocating the DEATH SENTENCE, since that is what God’s JUSTICE requires for sin? Do we really purport to be able to enact how GOD would govern?

Okay, so maybe we’re nuanced enough to realize we can’t possibly approximate GOD’S JUSTICE in human politics and wouldn’t even know where to begin (please tell me this isn’t a debatable point).

So then, whose Justice? Is it really that simple a concept that you can purport to know what it should look like? What I see, more often than not (on both sides of the political spectrum), when people invoke extremely complicated concepts like Justice as if it was a blunt instrument, is people usurping spiritual language to justify whatever the heck they want to do.


Have you ever read Michael Sandal’s book JUSTICE? He actually argues that we should have MORE moral debates in politics, not less. Because what we have now is “ideological food fights” rather than moral debate. Debate requires the humility that you might be persuaded (even if doubtful). I can recommend quite a few other books on “pursing Justice” and the political process if you’d really like to get into this, as opposed to tossing the word “JUSTICE” around as a banner above whatever it is one might be arguing. If you'd rather not getting into defining what "Justice" means, then lets leave it out of the argument.

I take moral civic engagement very seriously. And I take exercising my faith in the world toward concrete ends very seriously. That is different than bringing God’s name (and often His supposed “will”) into enacting laws for human government.

So, your point about not “over-spiritualizing” in order to justify “doing nothing,” is well taken. Except, I already knew that and evidenced it in previous posts. Do you acknowledge the dangers I flag here – of using complicated spiritual principles as blunt instruments to enact whatever human agenda one sees fit?

Pardon my intense tone. I've just seen too many people damaged by the kind of hubris at the bottom of your comments.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Wow. This argument is so amazingly smug and lacking in Christian humilty.

Obviously you feel strongly about this so perhaps we can have an intelligent and civil discussion. I think I can understand where you are coming from but will try to not assume. I would also point out that there is such a thing as "false humility". Since it is quite current and relevant to the current political situation in the US I would refer to Ayn Rand. Although I feel she was seriously mistaken in her beliefs, I also think that it is very instructive as to how she formed these beliefs and why they resonate with millions of people. (I will address the rest of your post in a later post, for now I want to frame the argument so that we are both talking about the same thing).

She grew up in Russia and witnesses first hand being "bulldozed" by the politics of the day which seized businesses that people built up under a pretense of altruism, the greater good, being charitable, etc. Perhaps I oversimplify, I am really not interested in the biography of Ayn Rand, only the context of what happened in Russia.

So then, why did people allow their government to seize businesses and attack an ethnic minority? Obviously one group that was clearly targeted and attacked at this time were the Jews, but they were certainly not the only group. More importantly what is the proper response? Should the Jews have fought? How should they have stood up for their rights?

To answer that question I am not interested in anyone's philosophy, I am interested in an example of a persecuted minority standing up to an unrighteous government successfully. Mahatma Ghandi obviously comes first to mind, and Martin Luther King Jr. also comes to mind. Malcolm X is a third example albeit a little more complex.

In every case it took faith for them to stand up and speak to the mountain to be cast into the sea. In every case these were men of faith who did not hide their faith. In every case these men did not bind themselves with requirements to not speak of their faith or of their God.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Obviously you feel strongly about this so perhaps we can have an intelligent and civil discussion. I think I can understand where you are coming from but will try to not assume. I would also point out that there is such a thing as "false humility". Since it is quite current and relevant to the current political situation in the US I would refer to Ayn Rand. Although I feel she was seriously mistaken in her beliefs, I also think that it is very instructive as to how she formed these beliefs and why they resonate with millions of people. (I will address the rest of your post in a later post, for now I want to frame the argument so that we are both talking about the same thing).

She grew up in Russia and witnesses first hand being "bulldozed" by the politics of the day which seized businesses that people built up under a pretense of altruism, the greater good, being charitable, etc. Perhaps I oversimplify, I am really not interested in the biography of Ayn Rand, only the context of what happened in Russia.

So then, why did people allow their government to seize businesses and attack an ethnic minority? Obviously one group that was clearly targeted and attacked at this time were the Jews, but they were certainly not the only group. More importantly what is the proper response? Should the Jews have fought? How should they have stood up for their rights?

To answer that question I am not interested in anyone's philosophy, I am interested in an example of a persecuted minority standing up to an unrighteous government successfully. Mahatma Ghandi obviously comes first to mind, and Martin Luther King Jr. also comes to mind. Malcolm X is a third example albeit a little more complex.

In every case it took faith for them to stand up and speak to the mountain to be cast into the sea. In every case these were men of faith who did not hide their faith. In every case these men did not bind themselves with requirements to not speak of their faith or of their God.

What happened in Russia is a good example of the sort of thing that I'm arguing against. I have long argued this about Communism in particular. Theoretically, the theory can be defended. The problem comes in when you impose a "religion" on a diverse population. All sorts of unintended negative consequences flow from it.

Ghandi and MLK are very good examples of "seeking justice" in politics. And I would agree that they tood their stands because of their faith. I would argue, though, that their public presentation did not need to invoke "God's will" in order to have a powerful moral force. Both of their arguments could be made by invoking premises that everyone in their audience could engage with, regardless of faith. Indeed, Ghandi was very careful when it came to attaching his arguments to a faith. As soon as he died, the coalition of diverse faiths (at least of Hindu and Muslim) fell apart.

Thoughts on this?

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What happened in Russia is a good example of the sort of thing that I'm arguing against. I have long argued this about Communism in particular. Theoretically, the theory can be defended. The problem comes in when you impose a "religion" on a diverse population. All sorts of unintended negative consequences flow from it.

Ghandi and MLK are very good examples of "seeking justice" in politics. And I would agree that they tood their stands because of their faith. I would argue, though, that their public presentation did not need to invoke "God's will" in order to have a powerful moral force. Both of their arguments could be made by invoking premises that everyone in their audience could engage with, regardless of faith. Indeed, Ghandi was very careful when it came to attaching his arguments to a faith. As soon as he died, the coalition of diverse faiths (at least of Hindu and Muslim) fell apart.

Thoughts on this?

Peter

A second source that greatly influenced Gandhi is the “New Testament” in the Bible. A particular Bible verse that greatly inspired Gandhi is in the book of “Matthew,” “‘Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’”(NIV Bible 1540). Gandhi, although a devout Hindu, was tolerant of all religions and continuously studied the Bible along with other religious books. Gandhi believed that if one “turned the other cheek,” then overtime the enemy would have no other choice but to respect that person for their self-control. Gandhi adopted and expanded his belief in peaceful, non-violent resistance or satyagraha from the Bible, for “Jesus suggested a new, radical response to injustice: instead of demanding rights, give them up freely! According to Jesus, it is more important to give justice and mercy than to receive it” (NIV Bible 1541). Even though Gandhi advocated satyagraha, he did not support passive resistance. (Taken from http://mgandhi.weebly.com/influences.html)

The first source of influence was David Thoreau who probably follows your model of not “invoking God or the Bible”.

You might not realize that Ghandi once published an article called “Crime of reading the Bible” because he was being accused of being a secret Christian. He saw this as a sign that religious intolerance was sweeping through India. But the influence of the Bible on Ghandi and that he read the Bible for his entire life is undeniable.

Obviously Martin Luther King Jr used the Bible extensively in his speeches and essentially codified passive resistance as a narrow way to take to get justice. But what I find much more important is the integral part that the church played in that battle. It wasn’t merely a speech that convinced people, all the hard work was done by the church. The little girls martyred in the basement of the church were probably the single most important event of the movement.

As for Malcolm X he said “I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion.” I think that sums up my position.


(PS Igzy, I read your Mom's advice and I anticipated that. I have made a copy of the post in question, just in case. Also, sorry for all of these posts, I felt I had to respond and did not originally intend all of this.)

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Let’s talk about this “justice” you invoke to justify bringing God into politics. First, WHOSE Justice? God’s?

For example, when I talk about Justice in Politics I am thinking of the civil rights movement and the bombing in Birmingham of the little girls in the church. To me the proper way to respond to that is given by the Lord in the gospels where he talked about the widow going to the unrighteous judge. Why did the "unrighteous judge" listen to her? Because she was causing him trouble. Why did the unrighteous judge in Montgomery listen to them? Because of the bus boycott which caused them trouble.

Could the civil rights movement have been successful without meeting in churches, coordinating in churches and having pastors run the movement? No. The pastors were men that the community trusted, and they were educated and they had an existing network that allowed them to coordinate locally and nationally.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

So then, whose Justice? Is it really that simple a concept that you can purport to know what it should look like? What I see, more often than not (on both sides of the political spectrum), when people invoke extremely complicated concepts like Justice as if it was a blunt instrument, is people usurping spiritual language to justify whatever the heck they want to do.

Have you ever read Michael Sandal’s book JUSTICE? He actually argues that we should have MORE moral debates in politics, not less. Because what we have now is “ideological food fights” rather than moral debate. Debate requires the humility that you might be persuaded (even if doubtful). I can recommend quite a few other books on “pursing Justice” and the political process if you’d really like to get into this, as opposed to tossing the word “JUSTICE” around as a banner above whatever it is one might be arguing. If you'd rather not getting into defining what "Justice" means, then lets leave it out of the argument.

I take moral civic engagement very seriously. And I take exercising my faith in the world toward concrete ends very seriously. That is different than bringing God’s name (and often His supposed “will”) into enacting laws for human government.

So, your point about not “over-spiritualizing” in order to justify “doing nothing,” is well taken. Except, I already knew that and evidenced it in previous posts. Do you acknowledge the dangers I flag here – of using complicated spiritual principles as blunt instruments to enact whatever human agenda one sees fit?

Unless I missed something, is this the only question in that long, bitterly scathing and caustic diatribe?

To answer the question, yes I am aware. I am aware that when you go to war you should not underestimate your opponent. I am also aware of the expression "all is fair in love and war" implying that when you lose the war you cannot complain that "they cheated". You have to be prepared for lies, cheating, deceit, etc. If you are not prepared, don't go to war. It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Pardon my intense tone. I've just seen too many people damaged by the kind of hubris at the bottom of your comments.

I can pardon the tone. What I find offense at is your accusation of hubris. Throughout your entire harangue which I found devoid of "christian humility" you assume that you know me, understand me, and then judge me to be arrogant. You didn't make any effort to "get to the bottom of my comments".

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

Yes, I have seen this form of "love" previously in the Local Church. I think you are deceived as to what "love" is and I really do mean "deceived". I would be very interested in engaging in a discussion, but if this rant is the style to be expected here then no, this will be the last I post.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Disciple

It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

Isn't this an over-simplification? Is it not more in keeping with the text of Ephesians to state that the Church has an aspect of being an army? Or that the metaphor of an army is a good way to describe some aspect of the church?

I would suggest that there are parallels. But the bulk of the NT does not describe an army. Rather, it describes the changing of lives and the propagation of the gospel that changes those lives. In focusing on the goals, an army may be a good metaphor. But the way that the church actually goes about accomplishing its goals is mostly un-army-like. So if you read Ephesians and you come away with "the Church is to be the Army of God" then I believe that you missed the point. Especially if you think that the goal of that army is to set out and do battle with the earthly rulers and force God's justice upon them.

God can "do" his justice very well without out us.

And did you catch the equivocation above? I first used "justice" the way we use it when we get on political discussions. I used it as the term for the judging and meting out of punishment of a court (kangaroo or otherwise). But in the Bible, justice is mostly used in a very different way. There is a connection. But it is not about discovering, accusing, and punishing. It is about changing our being such that we recognize how society has outcast God's children (in the sense that mankind is all God's children) and reach out to bring them back into the fold.

Yes, as Christians we like to include the preaching of the gospel with that effort. But it is not always the immediate need. And if you realize that your changed life reaching out to a marginalized person is part of the gospel, then you realize that you do not always need to say anything to have preached at least part of the gospel. Just plant a seed with your actions. Or water the seed that another has left behind. God will make it grow.

Where is the "army" in that? Maybe in the fact that we are all in agreement about it. And all engaged in some way in it. But not in the way of "marching to war." The government is not our enemy. That may be easier to say in the US than in some other places. But even if the government is an enemy, no government is the kingdom, or a theocracy (at least not relative to the One True God). And in terms of the mission of the kingdom and the gospel, the government is not the enemy. Satan is. The snares that bind people from hearing and seeing the truth are the enemy. You may argue that the allowances of government assist this. And that may be true.

But we are not fighting against people. And that is what you do when you fight the government. You fight against people. Even against your own kind (Christian). Note that at least one among us who is clearly Christian has admitted to not being a Reagan Republican. If you are simply fighting liberals, then you fight your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Just like the arguments on this forum, we are free to differ and discuss. We can disagree with our brothers and sisters on matters of politics. And we should be willing to accept that it is just the way it is. And discuss our different opinions and thoughts. Try to persuade. Do not always think that you will be the one persuading and the others will be the persuaded.

How do you think I came to this kind of conclusion? It was not by being so certain that what I already thought was perfectly right and sticking to my guns and shouting at everyone else. If that was the case, maybe I should have stuck with the Assemblies of God. Or after moving to the LRC, sticking with that.

And maybe I would have made a great far-right, Tea Party conservative. Not any more. I'm still far from anything truly liberal. But the Tea Party guys think I've gone there. It's all black and white to them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Disciple

It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

I also have to protest the implications of this statement.

The reason is that Christians often lose sight of who their enemy is. This analogy has been used often in church history to justify a myriad of atrocities. The Apostle Paul clarified this in another verse by saying that, "we wrestle not with flesh and blood."

Yes, we are an army, even the army of God, but no, we don't fight with anyone that we can see!

Our fight is with the unseen. We "fight the good fight," not in the courtrooms nor with guns nor with political back-stabbing, but through prayer. We need to know who our enemy is. Our enemy is not our brother.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also have to protest the implications of this statement.

The reason is that Christians often lose sight of who their enemy is. This analogy has been used often in church history to justify a myriad of atrocities. The Apostle Paul clarified this in another verse by saying that, "we wrestle not with flesh and blood."

Yes, we are an army, even the army of God, but no, we don't fight with anyone that we can see!

Our fight is with the unseen. We "fight the good fight," not in the courtrooms nor with guns nor with political back-stabbing, but through prayer. We need to know who our enemy is. Our enemy is not our brother.

Yes there are many implications of this statement, which is why I gave numerous examples to define the context and limit the implications. I gave three in particular: Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. To be sure, only one had the testimony of being a Christian and this was intentional. To say that these three saw their ministry as "a war" is not unreasonable. To say that these three saw their supporters as members of an army is also a very reasonable analogy. To say that this analogy is supported by the NT is scriptural.

[Peter Debelak]

Dear Disciple:

I apologize for placing my characterization of your argument as if it was a quote. I wasn't thinking. I was trying to "set off" a part of MY post, since lengthy posts (which mine tend to be) can be hard to read (yes, often for more than one reason).

I am also sorry I did not first ask you to elaborate. I should have done this.

To that end, there were a few other genuine questions in my post:

1) WHOSE Justice do you refer to when you advocate for invoking God in politics?

2) I noted that your argument could be made based solely on Old Testament principles; In what way do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument?

As a final note, I do agree that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt to seek justice.

I know this doesn't erase my tone, but I would much rather discuss the substance of each other's arguments than get into a "food fight." So, take this, if you will, as a mea culpa.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Disciple:

I apologize for placing my characterization of your argument as if it was a quote. I wasn't thinking. I was trying to "set off" a part of MY post, since lengthy posts (which mine tend to be) can be hard to read (yes, often for more than one reason).

I am also sorry I did not first ask you to elaborate. I should have done this.

To that end, there were a few other genuine questions in my post:

1) WHOSE Justice do you refer to when you advocate for invoking God in politics?

2) I noted that your argument could be made based solely on Old Testament principles; In what way do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument?

As a final note, I do agree that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt to seek justice.

I know this doesn't erase my tone, but I would much rather discuss the substance of each other's arguments than get into a "food fight." So, take this, if you will, as a mea culpa.

Accepted.

1. I would like to constrain the discussion to specific examples. Obviously the intent of the thread had Perry and Palin in mind. But in my mind I am thinking of Ghandi, King, and Malcolm X. But I brought up Ayn Rand to include the Russian Pogrom and the German holocaust and by extension other genocides like the Armenian, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc. In each case a "minority" was singled out since by definition they are smaller, weaker and easier to bully. I suppose I am talking of the "justice" from the oppressed point of view.

2. I believe that the strategy of passive resistance as advocated by Ghandi, adopted by King and later acknowledged by Malcolm X is the strategy that I am thinking of and this idea had a NT origination. When you read Ghandi he makes a case for, supports and even suggests that his idea was inspired by Jesus' words. Now to require him to have done what he did without bringing the Bible into it would have been a huge disadvantage for him.

Likewise King made a case for this approach based fully on the New Testament. He admonished his supporters with New Testament principles and his speeches were filled with Biblical references. To have put him under the constraint of not using the Bible would have been a huge disadvantage.

Malcolm X had many justifiable outrages towards hypocritical Christians. Yet he also was swayed in the end by both his personal experience and the Bible. His personal experience was completely entwined with his believe in God. It was his visit to Mecca that converted him to embrace passive resistance.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

If you agree that the Civil Rights movement in the US was an example of political involvement in order to change laws and seek justice, then I would continue discussing your view about not bringing the name of God or the word of God into the battle.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here's you're argument:

1) As a Christian, I know "justice" and "righteousness" (if you don't believe me, trust me, "I was trained in the way of it").

2) I have the blueprint for justice (God's laws, memorized word-for-word. Forget that Jesus told many people who had God's laws memorized that they were "workers of lawlessness").

3) The Constitution says its okay for me to participate with my all-knowingness.

(*oh yeah, I forgot the part that I'm destined to rule and reign, so I should get some practice now)

Of course, I editorialized. But that's what you argued. Straight up.

I was unable to put the "quoted" material into my previous post. Clearly this is not a direct quote from my post, to portray it as though it was is disingenuous. Then to say this is what I argued "straight up" is a lie.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Clearly this is not a direct quote from my post, to portray it as though it was is disingenuous. Then to say this is what I argued "straight up" is a lie.

Disciple,

My sense was that Peter was making a characterization of your argument. To me this is like if someone ran through a theater shouting "Flames! Smoke! Heat!" and Peter said that they ran through a theater shouting "Fire!" that person could say, "That is a lie. I never used the word, 'Fire' ". I felt he was characterizing your argument, even though he presented his characterization as quotes. And I felt his characterization was fairly accurate, though it might have been a bit too vehement (this from one whose posts are often too vehement, in retrospect).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Disciple,

My sense was that Peter was making a characterization of your argument. To me this is like if someone ran through a theater shouting "Flames! Smoke! Heat!" and Peter said that they ran through a theater shouting "Fire!" that person could say, "That is a lie. I never used the word, 'Fire' ". I felt he was characterizing your post, even though he presented them if they were quotes. And I felt his characterization was fairly accurate, though it might have been a bit too vehement (this from one whose posts are mostly too vehement, in retrospect).

I found this thread to be quite engaging to me personally, exploring areas that I long have questioned, learning from diverse posters. We were just presenting ideas for others to consider.

Then Disciple jumped in with a fervent opinion. I have heard it before, but I passed on it since he is new to the forum, and it's hard to know what someone really thinks based on a short post. I think it would be better if Disciple register and then begin to elaborate his/her views being mindful of prior discussions. That said, Peter D's paraphrased quote of your post did seem to take on unintended liberty.

Can we all please turn the volume down so this discussion does not get closed down. I, for one, hear much better this way.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Do you realize I could have made your exact same argument, word for word, even if Christ had never accomplished what He has and as if Christ isn't doing what He is doing???????? In what way, if at all, do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument????????.

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. For example during the bus boycott. The law was that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. This is like be smitten on the cheek. Deciding that if you won't let us sit in the front we also won't sit in the back is like turning the other cheek.

Of course, imho, the best example of turing the other cheek is Jesus willingly going to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely critical in the New Covenant and is set as an example for all believers when Jesus said that we must take up our cross and follow Him.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. For example during the bus boycott. The law was that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. This is like be smitten on the cheek. Deciding that if you won't let us sit in the front we also won't sit in the back is like turning the other cheek.

Of course, imho, the best example of turing the other cheek is Jesus willingly going to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely critical in the New Covenant and is set as an example for all believers when Jesus said that we must take up our cross and follow Him.

From an objective point of view, it is not "just" that someone would compel me to go a mile. It certainily doesn't achieve further justice that I go another mile.

This principles I don't think were spoken as a basis to seek justice. In fact, they mostly imply that you cannot expect justice in the human experience. Instead, do not focus on human justice - seek after God's kingdom. Humans seeking human justice seems to be the OPPOSITE of Jesus' argument in the sermon.

Do not get me wrong. I think the civil rights struggle was a noble chapter in American history. I like to think I would have been marching right alongside. And I think it was an attempt to reach toward a better "justice" in America.

I also agree that invoking Christian principles was effective part of the argument.

But none of this justifies taking Jesus' argument out of context and employing for one's own political aims EVEN IF I happen to agree with your political aims.

Is the distinction I'm making clear?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Disciple

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil...

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used.

The sermon on the mount says "resist not" and then you use it as a foundation of your argument on resistance. I don't get it. Passive resistance is still resistance. Jesus didn't say "resist passively"; He said, "resist not."

Originally Posted by aron

The sermon on the mount says "resist not" and then you use it as a foundation of your argument on resistance. I don't get it. Passive resistance is still resistance. Jesus didn't say "resist passively"; He said, "resist not."

Ghandi's insight was that instead of demanding rights, give them up freely. For example, in Alabama blacks didn't have the right to sit in the front of the bus, therefore they gave up the right to ride the bus altogether. The bus boycott was extremely difficult on the blacks since most depended on the bus. But it was equally difficult on the bus company since they depended on the revenue from blacks to be solvent. I think this is a good example of "turning the other cheek". The law took away the front of the bus, the blacks willingly gave up the back of the bus.

This concept is the cornerstone of the civil rights movement and highlights the wisdom of the Lord Jesus.

Whenever you look at institutional abuse, genocide of course being the most extreme example, but slavery, Jim Crowe laws, KKK, etc are all examples. You learn that the "bully" has all the cards. They control the police, the courts and the media. You could be defending yourself while being attacked by two people, yet it will be portrayed as an assault, you will be tried, convicted and spend 10 years in jail. Look at the story of the Hurricane, that is a prime example. So then being provoked into fighting back, resisting, is playing straight into their hands. The fact that you were righteous is irrelevant, you will be portrayed as just one more angry black, no one will care, and your conviction will strengthen the feeling that blacks are dangerous which in turn gives support to the institutional abuse.

But the flip side of this is that the entire house of cards is built on the backs of the poor. If the poor willingly give up their rights the house collapses, as it did in Montgomery. Reasonable people realize that we want our poorest members of society to be gainfully employed so that they can support themselves and their families. We also want everyone to have hope of a better future as a deterrent to choosing crime or some other anti social path. We also want everyone to have a certain minimum of healthcare so that we don't worry on the bus or in the movie theater that we are going to get TB or some other communicable disease. We want these things because they are in our best interests and the best interests of our family. Also, "economy of scale" is the basis on which many public works are done. We build things anticipating a certain demand for these services. If you remove 20% of your demand it could cause basic public services to collapse. So rather than viewing themselves as poor blacks, they now see themselves as integral parts of society without which the entire system collapses.

They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free.

[Peter Debelak]

I wanted to share a little thought regarding the Founder's and their appeal to God (most evident in the the Declaration that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right").

This point will also shed light on why I think some appeals to God are okay, or at least less problematic to me.

I have argued here that, in debates regarding human government, it is critical that the parties who are in debate share their premises. If I appeal to God to an athiest, I don't have a chance of persuading them. So, if I actually have any chance of persuading them, I need to appeal to a foundation I share with them....

There is a big debate in legal scholarship about the "source authority" for any given legal system. If you aim to ultimately alter the legal system, you have to reference your arguments in terms of that "source authority."

The Founders were attempting to make a legal/moral argument to the British about why they were justified in separating and even in revolution. What was the "source authority" for the British monarchy? God. The king was directly commissioned by God in the British system (to be sure, later "sovereignty" would reside in parliament). If a group was to make a clear argument for justifiable separation from the British government, it would have to be based on an argument from the British "source authority." In this case, that was God.

A lot of Tories (Americans sympathetic to the British) were still attached to Britian because of religious beliefs about the monarchy and "God's government" (I can get sources for this, if that's a point of contention).

By appealing to the "source authority" of the British argument, the revolutionaries could meet the "doubters" where they were at.

The "doubters" were inclined to agree with the "God-approved" monarch. The founder's argued that liberty - which was being trampled by that monarch - was a God-given right. If the monarch was of God, it certainly wasn't following God's way.

The invocation of God was pragmatic.

Similarly with MLK. The "toughest" audience for him was the South, which was statistically mostly Christian. An appeal to the Bible was instrumentally effective. That is not to say MLK didn't believe in his appeal to God and the Bible. Its obvious he did. But he was also trying to connect to a population who shared his belief in God and the Bible.

Importantly, however, these are instrumental arguments. NOT arguments about "universal truth" or "God's will." So I would still argue that they are out of place.

Does that make sense?

Peter

P.S. This is the same concept that drove some GLA leaders to root their arguments against LSM in WL and WN. I remember one blog post of Kerry Robiceaux's where he took Nigel Tomes to task. Nigel argued that one publication was against the teaching in the Bible. But he didn't elaborate. Instead, he made his argument by reference to Watchman Nee's arguments. This was an attempt to appeal to a perceived common "source authority." Kerry called him out (rightly, in my opinion) on why he chose to appeal to WN rather than the Bible - since that was, at least theoretically, a common source authroity among Christians. That said, Nigel likely recognized what Kerry didn't acknowledge: if you want to convinces LCers of something, you can't just appeal to the Bible - you have to appeal their "de facto" "source authority" - WL or WN....