http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2012/11/politics-and-civil-use-of-law.html
You assume that the onlyeffective method for opposing something is political activism. That is sheernonsense. I can speak out against it. I don’t have to attempt policy reformthrough political activism in order to be against something. If so, why andhow?
Of course, I never saidthe only effective method of opposing “something” is political activism. Ratherwe were dealing with the specific case of public school indoctrination. And Isaid that “if you reject Christian political activism, then you have noeffective means of opposing the secular education establishment.”
Ed complains about how“the educational institutions play a strategic role in the liberalindoctrination of our children.”
So what, if anything, doeshe propose to do about it? To merely “speak out” against public schoolindoctrination is not an “effective” means of opposing it. To merely be“against” something is not an “effective” means of opposing it. Rather, Ed’salternative is an ineffectual means of opposing it. It doesn’t change anything.
While I identify stronglywith the doctrines of grace, and consider myself reformed in terms of mysoteriology, I do not agree with covenant theology's hermeneutic. I am goodfriends with Dr. Henebury and would align more closely with his views on thatsubject.
I am not a covenanttheologian and reject their division of the law. It is based on an illegitimatehermeneutic in my view.
Dispensationalism isn’tintrinsically opposed to the culture wars. Fred Butler is a case in point.
Moreover, one doesn’t haveto be a covenant theologian or “theonomist” to grant a fair amount of carryoverbetween OT ethics and NT ethics. Consider the following monographs:
1. Toward Old TestamentEthics, by Walter C. Kaiser
2. Story as Torah, byGordon Wenham
3. Old Testament Ethicsfor the People of God, by Christopher J. H. Wright
4. The Immigration Crisis:Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible, by James K. Hoffmeier
Natural theology is thebasis for civil law and order.
Culture warriors likeFrancis Beckwith and Robert George typically ground their positions in naturallaw, yet you oppose the culture wars. So which is it?
We judge the church, Godjudges the world (1 Cor. 5:12-13)
i) Non sequitur. Christianpolitical activism isn’t about “judging the world.” Rather, it’s about advancingor defending public policies which respect the right of Christians to dischargetheir divinely-mandated duties to God and to their fellow man. And it’s also about advancing ordefending social policies which promote the common good.
Far from “judging theworld,” this is merciful to unbelievers. Unbelievers benefit from Christiansocial values. Their children benefit from Christian social values. Theirgrandparents benefit from Christian social values.
ii) The Pauline passagehas reference to church discipline. Christian social conservatives aren’tsuggesting that we should practice church discipline on people outside thechurch. Ed’s citation is off-the-wall.
You are not taking generalprinciples and applying them to specific scenarios.
Ed says it’s not, but hedoesn’t show it’s not.
The Law “rewarded” lawfulbehavior on the part of the Jews, but mostly it cursed them.
It rewards obedience andpunishes disobedience. That’s perfectly consonant with what I said.
This was foreseen evenbefore the Law was given. Again, the Law was given to national Israel. It wasnot given to modern American culture.
As far as that goes,Paul’s epistle to the Romans wasn’t given to 21C Americans. It was given to 1CChristians. So Ed’s objection cuts both says.
The broadest sense interms that men are commanded to work with their hands to provide for their own.While that work is undefined, nevertheless, it means that we are to have a job.That concept falls safely within the Christian value system.
Opposing abortion,infanticide, sodomite marriage, euthanasia, &c., falls safely within theChristian value system too.
If a man does not work, neither should he eat. If he does notwork, he is worse than an unbeliever. That work might be a civil servant or somethingelse. To say it carries so far as this political activism s a specious argumentat best.
Ed is simply disregardingthe supporting argument I used to illustrate my contention.
If it was possible for theNew Testament Church to be socially responsible, but not politically active,why is that not possible for the modern church? I think you are beinganachronistic.
Social responsibilitiesare not identical across time and space. For instance, American electedofficials are answerable to the electorate in a way that Roman emperors werenot answerable to the hoi polloi. So Ed is the one who’s being anachronistichere.
Fathers and husbands andchildren are given specific instructions on how to provide for their familiesto include their parents. Are we to think that the NT audience had no earthlyidea what Jesus meant when He said this or when Paul said it? They knewfull-well what Christ and Paul meant. It means to think honorably of them, andto provide for their basic needs if necessary.
Now Ed is shifting ground.He’s no longer appealing to the specificity of the command, because the wordingof the command is actually quite vague. Instead, he’s appealing to a culturalpreunderstanding.
It does not mean cut thecenturion’s throat and overthrow the government to make things better for them.Nor does it mean to engage in efforts to dethrone Caesar because his policiesare oppressive to my family, my kids, and my parents.
Notice how Ed acts as ifChristian Americans working within the democratic process is analogous tofomenting a violent insurrection.
Now, as a matter of fact,Protestant historical theology does have a theology of revolution, but that’s aside issue in the current discussion.
Defending your kidsagainst a godless culture can be achieved by pointing out the sin in thatculture and how that culture engages in one God-hating behavior after another.It means indoctrinating your kids in the way of God. It means living God’svalues at home so they can see the difference in the Christian group as opposedto the godless community at large.
Notice how blinkered heis. He takes for granted a situation in which Christians still enjoy parentalrights. In which Christian parents still have the freedom to raise their kidsin the faith.
But that’s preciselywhat’s coming under increasing attack. Ed isn’t prepared to deal with thereal-world situation confronting us.
Submission to the civilgovernment is the command of Paul.
I dealt with that before:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/autocracy.html
That government was farmore encroached upon the NT Church than American government is.
Wrong. Modern informationand surveillance technology makes it possible for the state to be far moreintrusive than was possible in Roman times.
Paul said nothing aboutpushing them back.
That wasn’t a live optionback then and there.
He offered no leturestelling the church that the government needs to be pushed back so that we canhave religious liberty and live in a nice moral culture in which to serveChrist.
Ed acts as if “living in anice moral culture” is just a favor to Christians who wish to avoid suffering.But a country that’s influenced by Christian social values is beneficial tounbelievers as well.
How about prayer? Paultold Timothy to pray to that end. Isn’t it possible that the vehicle God usesto accomplish this is prayer?
Ed is treating prayer as a substitute for action rather than a preparation for action. But prayerisn’t a way of just fobbing our responsibilities onto God and telling him to doit for us.
If, after having done allwe can, we find ourselves in a position where prayer is our only remainingrecourse, then so be it. But that’s not an excuse to be like the proverbialfool who doesn’t think ahead, doesn’t take precautions, then cries out to Godwhen foreseeable and preventable disasters overtake him.
Of course it must also bewithin His divine plan that we live in such a culture and this seems to be anunspoken assumption on your part and the part of all those American Christianswho think we deserve religious liberty for some reason when most of ourbrothers and sisters live in dire circumstances.
i) To begin with, Ed failsto distinguish between civil rights and divine rights. Christians do have civilrights under the US Constitution. So, yes, that’s something we’re entitled toas American citizens.
ii) Do we deservereligious liberty from God? No. But who suggested that this was an issue ofgetting what we deserve?
Yes, many Third WorldChristians live in dire circumstances. Does Ed think we should promote livingin dire circumstances?
If we lose our rights, itis by divine decree.
And if we don’t lose ourrights, it’s by divine decree. And if we defend our rights, it’s by divinedecree.
I don’t lose sleep overthe possibility that Christianity may be underground in America in 50 years oreven sooner.
Since Ed won’t be alive 50years from now, it’s easy for him not to lose any sleep over that prospect.
And notice theself-fulfilling nature of the prospect. If enough Christian Americans followEd’s passive, reactionary example then, of course, they bring it on themselves.They make inevitable what was not inevitable.
I know God is faithful.My hope is not in the American way of life. My hope is built on Christ.
That’s one of thoseself-congratulatory pieties that makes the speaker feel oh-so devout, but italso twists the real issue out of any recognizable form.
Ed acts as if this is justabout preserving the American dream. About Christians having a nice standard ofliving. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
But that misses the point.For instance, I believe it’s currently legal for a Christian student at apublic junior high or high school to form a Bible club. That’s his religiousright under the Constitution. And thus far that’s been upheld in court. Thepublic school can only ban a Bible club by banning every other student club.
But he’s not doing thatfor his own benefit. Rather, that’s a way of reaching out to his lost classmates.Yet Ed would deny them that hope. As long as he’s got his ticket to heaven,then to hell with the up-and-coming generation.
Some additional comments:
http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-hypocrisy-of-political-activism.html
This has essentiallynothing to do with the fact that Jason’s speech is offensive. That last time Ichecked, when you become aware that you have offended your brother, you aresupposed to go and be reconciled.
That’s simplistic. It’snot enough to be the offended party. You need to be the wronged party. You needto be justifiably offended. The offending party must sin against you, notmerely offend you. Anyone can be offended by anything. But that’s notself-warranting.
We should be deeplyconcerned with those who are vulnerable. But are we to show that concernthrough imposing Christian values on a godless culture or by some other means?
He talks about imposingChristian values as if that’s onerous.
How did the early church deal with abortion?
The NT church wasn’t inmuch position to deal with abortion.
How did it deal with thehomosexual issue? Did Paul tell the Roman Christians to lobby Caesar so as tooutlaw it? I don’t find Paul even hinting at such actions. He preachedrepentance. He called it what it was. But he never spent time trying to have itbanned.
This is deliberatelyobtuse. The persistent refusal to take into account radically differentcircumstances. Christian Americans have opportunities that Christians in the AD50s did not.
Your divorce analogy isnot unlike the rape scenario used by abortionists.
I didn’t use a divorceanalogy. I didn’t use an analogy. I discussed divorce because Ed brought it up.
I am talking about thefact that church discipline is almost non-existent for current abusers of gracewho do not take God’s word nor the Christian community seriously. Thesepolitical pastors refuse to act because of the scandal or because people mightleave or whatever. I asked one pastor if he was going to act in one case and hetold me he was not their Holy Spirit. Another pastor simply allowed the womanto resign and when that happened, even the presbytery did nothing to addressthe issue. Both of these men were and are highly vocal in their speech againstgay marriage. It is hard for me to take either one of them seriously.
What makes him think hisanecdotal experience with two pastors is a representative sample group?
So what? Pragmatism?Hypocrisy is just as offensive or perhaps more so to God as the behavior theculture warrior seeks to eradicate. So what, you eradicated sodomy, youreplaced it with rank hypocrisy. Nice job!
i) Ed is being dishonesthere. I used a hypothetical argument (“But suppose, for the sake ofargument…”). I don’t concede the actual hypocrisy.
ii) Moreover, he is ignoring my actual argument. Hypocrisy doesn't make doing the right thing wrong.
iii) In addition, it’s notmorally compromising when culture warriors avoid futile battles. It’s morallycompromising if effecting the right result lies within your power, but youdecline it. It’s not morally compromising if you don’t do what you can’t do.
So, not, it’s nothypocritical to pick your fights if you choose issues where you have areasonable prospect of winning or making gains while declining to waste time onissues–however meritorious–where you have no realistic prospect of success ormeaningful progress.
Ed’s objection lacks moralseriousness.
They would only behypocritical if the doctor accepted your presuppositions about abortion beingmurder. He does not! Therefore, as far as the doctor is concerned, he is beingquite consistent with his worldview. I am going to try to frame this up moreclearly using sodomite marriage and divorce.
It’s hypocritical becausehe arbitrarily protects the life of the toddler, but not the life of the baby.
Therefore, we will turn adeaf ear when our members divorce because it really isn’t that big a deal afterall.
When is “when.” If, say, aminister takes a pastorate in which a couple got divorced and remarried (withoutbiblical sanction) 20 years earlier, what is the new minister’s responsibility?
The old“end-justifies-the-means” argument. How many other sins should Christianscommit in order to transform the culture? Hypocrisy of any sort is a sin.
i) Once again, Ed is beingdishonest. Once again, I was using a hypothetical argument (“Suppose, for thesake of argument…”).
ii) As a matter of fact,sometimes a given end does justify the requisite means. Not every action isintrinsically right or wrong. If an action is intrinsically wrong, then theends can never justify the means. However, in situations where the action isn’tintrinsically evil, the ends can be justificatory.
So what are the guidingprinciples that help you pick which batter takes the top of the list? And whereis the exegetical support for that? Where is the exegetical support forengaging in political battles to begin with? All I have seen is an obscurestatement about general principles and logical inferences. From where? Generalprinciples from where?
He’s posing questions Ialready answered.
And there is consensus onthis, right? Who gets to say which ones are more destructive? The PCA? Thisopens the can of worms around who decides which issue to attack.
Now Ed is just beingwillfully contrarian.
I used the term adulteryin place of fornication for that reason. Since adultery is the cause of so manydivorces, it can only help the institution of marriage to outlaw it.
Which disregard thelimitations of the democratic process.
In addition, lying was nota violation of the covenant? Leviticus 19:11 clearly commands the Jew not tolie to one another. Hence, lying is a violation of the covenant. In Jer. 9:3-5,lying is characterized as evil.
Now Ed is playingbait-n-switch. I said lying per se is not an OT “crime.”
Romans 2 makes a greatcase for natural law as the foundation for civil law.
Perhaps, although thatinterpretation is debatable.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder