Pages

Thursday, November 18, 2010

If Jesus ran for public office

There are professing Christians who vote for Obama and other Democrats because they think Christians ought to be equally concerned with world poverty, healthcare, ecology, &c. For instance, if you mouse over to the USCCB website, and scroll down the “Social Justice Issues” section, it largely mirrors the party platform of the Democrat party.

We find the same emphasis among representatives of the Evangelical left, like Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo. But in what seems to be a more recent development, we’ve also had mainstream Evangelicals like Craig Blomberg and Darrell Bock telling us they voted for Obama. Likewise, in a faculty survey at Covenant College, 16 profs. identified themselves as Obama voters.

This raises an interesting question: if Jesus ran for public office, would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?

There’s a sense in which Jesus has some concern for healthcare. He healed many sick people and exorcised many demoniacs. Yet one can’t say that was his priority. After all, when you consider all the sick people who were alive at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, he only healed a tiny fraction of the totality. The number he healed was statistically insignificant in relation to the worldwide population of sick people.

And this is despite the fact that Jesus could have cured every single sick man, woman, and child with a mere thought.

Likewise, it lay within his power to make every poor person instantly and unimaginably rich. But he didn’t. Indeed, he himself was a manual laborer for most of his earthly life.

He also neglected ecology. For instance, he did nothing to eliminate solid waste dumps. Or the deforestation of Palestine. Or air pollution from wood stoves. To take a few examples.

On the other hand, he was strong on “family values” like traditional marriage and children. Not to mention true worship.

This is not to say that Jesus doesn’t care about the physical wellbeing of man, or the ecosystem. Yet that is largely backloaded. It awaits the Eschaton. And you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ.

We also need to distinguish between what the Bible permits and what it prescribes. It is certainly permissible to attend to our immediate necessities. Still, it’s striking to compare the agenda of some professing believers with the priorities of Christ.

41 comments:

  1. "This raises an interesting question: if Jesus ran for public office, would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?"

    It would not be surprising to see many Liberal Evangelicals and Liberal Catholics vote for the Democrat candidate against Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the other hand, he was strong on "family values" like traditional marriage and children.

    *****

    He was? Didn't he call people to leave their families? And to hate father, mother, wife and children? Was Jesus really a Dobson type? Doesn't sound like it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HACKSAW DUCK SAID:

    "Didn't he call people to leave their families? And to hate father, mother, wife and children?"

    You interpret Scripture like a backwoods fundy.

    i) "Hate" is a rhetorical device in antithetical parallelism ("love/hate"). The usage is hyperbolic. Try to bone up on semitic linguistic conventions.

    ii) He said if families force Christians to choose between him and them, they had an obligation to follow him. It's not as if Christians disowned their families. Rather, their families disowned Christians.

    But thanks for demonstrating your biblical illiteracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, do you think that much of the worry about health care and education and all that stems from an overemphasis on improving the quality of this life and less an emphasis on preparing for the next?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...: if Jesus ran for public office, would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?"

    As a non-American, and somewhat outside of American partisan politics, I doubt Jesus would have fit nicely into America's political spectrum.

    Just as your presupposition that he would not have been a 'Democrat' is likely correct, it's equally likely he would not have fit as nicely into the 'Republican' party mold either.

    Of course, looking at Jesus' politics from the perspective of the Gospel, it's clear he was interested in the Ministry appointed to him by God above all else.

    Still, when the pharisees tried to pin him down politically, for the sake of trapping him (in [Mark 12] He made it clear that political issues (de jour), such as taxation, were merely the transitory domain of man, whereas behind it all, was the eternal domain of God (implied in his answer); one is temporary, the other permenant.

    Still, I'm curious, doesn't democracy presuppose free-will?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would not be surprising to see many Liberal Evangelicals and Liberal Catholics vote for the Democrat candidate against Jesus.

    They, in fact, do just that. Regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ἐκκλησία said...

    "Still, I'm curious, doesn't democracy presuppose free-will?"

    Actually no. It presupposes the freedom to exercise one's will, which is not the same thing at all.

    Democracy presupposes the sinfulness of man, hoping (against hope...) that lots of people can over-ride the sinful desires of one.

    But when burning stuff, and driving a gas guzzler for the shear joy of driving, and drilling for oil in "enviromentally sensitive areas" so poor folk won't have to spend so much on energy, all become "sinful desires"...well then, what chance would Jesus have?

    Fortunately He's Lord and King, and not a candidate for anything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Indeed, political freedom has nothing to do with questions of free will.

    Various types of governments will say "This is what the government will punish you for; this is what the government will ignore if you do; this is what the government will reward if you do." So it just sets up how government reacts to its citizen's behaviors.

    Under "pure" democracy, the majority wins. Thus, it's like two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

    America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Here, the government is supposedly bound by the limits of the Constitution (yet it routinely ignores that document these days), and the Constitution gives people the right to appoint representatives to do all the governmental work for them, etc.

    This goes on regardless of whether the person doing the voting has libertarian free will, compatibilistic (or semi-compatibilistic) free will, or if they are strictly determined by blind fate. Therefore, the governmental scheme presupposes nothing about the state of the will.

    BTW: word verification word for this comment is "forca." I blame Bush for this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And this is despite the fact that Jesus could have cured every single sick man, woman, and child with a mere thought.

    Had Jesus healed every person from Adam to now, it would not in anyway change the nature of our being!

    I believe God loves people to be poor.

    Why?

    Because the poor you will have with you always and right now there are quite a bit more poor people than rich in the world. If God didn't love poor people, why are so many of them then? God's doesn't have any problem loving the poor!

    I believe God allows for some people, a very few, to be very rich and wealthy beyond necessity. Just ask Isaac and Solomon.

    I believe Hacksaw wouldn't see very well if he found his right eye to be so offensive he had to plucked it out!

    Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In fairness, Jesus' ministry was not political. If it had been, he would presumably have done a great deal differently.

    A spiritual ministry will tend to spiritual needs; necessarily at the detriment of the kinds of short-term needs which are the domain of politics.

    A political ministry would presumably tend to those short-term needs, at the expense of long-term spiritual needs.

    So I'm not sure how much we can infer from the gospels about Jesus' stance as a hypothetical political candidate.

    I'd also add that, as a non-American, the US political system strikes me as a truly bizarre monstrosity. Americans seem to think that Democrat or Republican are basically the only two political views a man can take; and never the twain shall meet. And I'm no political expert, but from where I'm standing in a country with a spectrum of political parties ranging from strong socialist to the other extreme, Democrats and Republicans look pretty similar. Both right wing. One just slightly further left than the other.

    ReplyDelete
  11. While there is a lot of truth to the post, it's misguided by the notion that the democratic process and separation of church and state are things Jesus or Scripture promotes or would even approve of.

    What caught my eye especially was the comment supposedly in favor of traditional marriage, despite the hugely ironic fact that even the most "conservative" end of Protestantism allows marriage destroying sins like divorce and contraception (among other things). In fact, Protestantism itself is in an adulterous affair of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe Hacksaw wouldn't see very well if he found his right eye to be so offensive he had to plucked it out!

    **********

    I wish someone had told me about this symbolic language stuff before I went and made myself a eunuch for the kingdom of God.

    No, I realize the "hate" usage was nonliteral. But it still shows a disregard of some kind for the nuclear family that modern evangelicals would find abhorrent. And Jesus did call men to leave their families, promising they would be rewarded later on for doing so. Not very Focus on the Family of him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If Jesus ran for public office he would win overwhelmingly. All those who misinterpret him and all those who don't would vote for him. The tiny one percent who oppose him just because he is, don't mount a hill of beans.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nick,

    First keep your priests away from your altar boys, *THEN* you may see clearly to point out Protestant immorality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The idea that the Democratic and Republican parties are equal or nearly the same is something I find deeply irrational.

    Before even examining the records of the two parties, we ought to ask how likely it is that two parties that disagree on so many issues would be of equal or nearly equal quality. The notion that they're the same or nearly the same is highly unlikely upfront.

    When we then go on to examine the two parties, the idea that they're the same or close to the same seems even more ridiculous. Bush's administration departed significantly from Republican principles by supporting so much government spending, yet the Obama administration has spent far more than Bush's administration did. The idea that there's no significant difference between the two is ludicrous. Some of the most controversial legislative votes in recent years, like the healthcare legislation just passed, broke down entirely or almost entirely along party lines. On moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, the two parties take significantly different positions. Pro-life policies on abortion, which are mostly the result of Republican efforts, have demonstrably been effective at reducing abortion. We addressed such issues many times on this blog during the 2008 presidential campaign. Even though John McCain was less conservative than I'd like, he was still much different than Obama. McCain's rating with the American Conservative Union was literally more than ten times that of Obama. To say that such a radical difference isn't significant would be, as I said above, deeply irrational. The two parties are very different.

    And polling has shown that there are significant differences between Democrats and Republicans on matters like religious belief and charitable giving. Is that just a coincidence? I doubt it.

    It's popular today in some circles to act as though neither party is significantly different than the other or to avoid addressing the subject. I often hear people on Christian radio, for example, make comments about how neither party can claim to be the Christian party, how both parties are corrupt, etc. Yet, these same Christian radio stations hold beliefs and do things that are far more consistent with the Republican party than the Democratic party. Maybe acting as if there isn't much difference between the parties helps them get more listeners, makes them think they sound more reasonable, allows them to avoid unwanted controversy, or benefits them in some other way. But it's obvious that the beliefs and practices of their radio station are far more in line with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals. If people can't take political sides for legal reasons, or they have some other motive for not wanting to acknowledge the obvious fact that the two parties are significantly different, then they could just remain silent on the issue. But to suggest that the two parties are the same or nearly the same is just absurd.

    The Republican party is more Christian. Yes, it's a corrupt party, despite the fact that it's the better of the two. And, yes, Democrats can be Christians. But let's not act as if there's no significant difference between the parties. There's a difference, and it's highly significant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And Jesus did call men to leave their families, promising they would be rewarded later on for doing so. Not very Focus on the Family of him."

    Now that is kinda interesting because the Gospels bear testimony that the women came along and the Epistles to the fact that at least some of the Apostles took their wives with them. And I am pretty sure that meant that the whole family was involved. The reference, too, is to those called into ministry not a general rule of practice for all. Although it has spiritual significance, Paul instructs the believing not to leave their spouses and the qualifications for elders would rule out any dysfunctional family relationships.

    So, I really don't know where one would derive that Jesus would have called for family dissembly. His own mother and sisters tagged along with him and his brothers and provided for their support. So, he obviously was both pro-women's right to work, and a strong advocate of family integrity in a complimentarian sort of way. True, his motiff would not be called egalitarian, but it certainly would fit with the mainstream's appreciation that it takes the whole family organically to make it work.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve:

    It's funny you touch on this topic; I just stopped by Roger Olson's blog (one or two posts is usually enough to make me want to smash something), and he, not surprisingly, was advocating wealth redistribution, that we might avoid God's wrath on our nation. These uber-liberal moderns and their saccharine platitudes about "social justice" for "the least of these" are enough to further crank down the thermostat in my already-icy heart.

    Here is the first (far as I can tell) in Olson's series on why obscene taxes are the biblical, Christian thing to impose on the nation: God Will Judge Us

    ReplyDelete
  18. DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:

    "I'd also add that, as a non-American, the US political system strikes me as a truly bizarre monstrosity. Americans seem to think that Democrat or Republican are basically the only two political views a man can take; and never the twain shall meet. And I'm no political expert, but from where I'm standing in a country with a spectrum of political parties ranging from strong socialist to the other extreme, Democrats and Republicans look pretty similar."

    Well, last time I surveyed the political landscape in your fair land, New Zealand was overrun by elves, orcs, hobbits, hell hawks, talking trees, and renege wizards.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jason Engwer,

    That was a very good comment. I fully agree with you.

    Just as it's a fallacy to draw moral equivalence between a Palestinian suicide bomber and an Israeli soldier, it's a fallacy to draw a socio-politico-moral equivalence between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve said "Well, last time I surveyed the political landscape in your fair land, New Zealand was overrun by elves, orcs, hobbits, hell hawks, talking trees, and renege wizards."

    Evidence of wit Steve? Keep that under wraps. No one will notice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love reading Steve's posts (I read triablogue every day) but have always felt he is at his weakest on political matters and cultural criticism.

    I am an Australian and wholeheartedly agree with Dominic Bnonn Tennant (who is a near neighbour). (For the record I agree that all governments should place importance on the things that Steve has shown Jesus has emphasised - and leading up to the presidential election of Obama I agreed with Steve's numerous posts that amounted to a moral criticism of Obama).

    In large part it appears to me that Steve's political views are conditioned by the sub-culture he finds himself in.

    I also get the feeling that a lot of Americans oppose healthcare reform out of selfishness rather than because of inference from Biblical data or sound social benefit/detriment analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve:

    I'm a first-time commenter here. Thanks for raising a contentious issue in a succinct manner. I am not so blessed with brevity, so I hope you'll forgive the length of this comment and still give my question your consideration. I'm a graduate of TEDS and a church planter, and have many questions related to the way faith in Jesus works out politically and socially in America and am frustrated with the often rancorous debate such questions elicit. Here is a question that your post touches on:

    Is it possible that simply asking the question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" actually does the Gospel more harm than good?

    By simply asking this question, I suggest you've inadvertently obscured the fullness of Jesus' good news. For instance, you downplay the physical needs of this world saying they are largely backloaded and awaiting fulfillment in the eschaton. However, Jesus' redemption of our souls is similarly backloaded in that we continue to struggle against the flesh and long for our deliverance. Paul uses the same sort of language to describe the groanings of a split soul as he does to describe all of creation as if in childbirth. Our justification and sealing by the Spirit are the promise of God to fully redeem us in the next life. Meanwhile, we wrestle in the fires of sanctification, sometimes in triumph, other times in defeat. How then is your claim that Jesus prioritized the saving of souls (implied in the phrase "you can only participate in the new Eden if you first come to Christ") an accurate representation of the fullness of his message?

    You turn to statistics to make your point, saying Jesus healed only a small fraction of those alive at the time who were sick. And yet, is it not also true that at the conclusion of his ministry he had only amassed 120 devoted followers? This too is a tiny fraction of the overall population of souls in need of salvation. As a Calvinist, one must at least believe in the possibility that Jesus could have elected all the people of the world during his lifetime, and yet chose not to, just as he chose not to heal all those with disease.

    I hope you see value in my question. I believe that by forcing Jesus into the American political peg-hole, you have had to round off certain portions of his Gospel in order to make him fit our context. No doubt he is pro-family values and pro-life, but he preached the redemption of the whole world - the physical as well as the spiritual - none of which is ultimately fulfilled until the Eschaton.

    To prioritize spiritual redemption over physical redemption is, in my opinion, a form of gnosticism rather than orthodoxy. As an example, it ignores the numerous calls in Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) to care for and protect the "widows and orphans," a group particularly vulnerable to social injustice in the ancient world. Faithfully analogizing from these clear prescriptions must at least include some effort and concern to protect and care for the oppressed and vulnerable groups of our society and throughout the world.

    Thus, I suggest the pursuit of justice for the oppressed, the healing of disease, ecological stewardship, AND the conversion of souls are all priorities of the overall mission of God to undo the curse as he leads us through the process of the New Exodus, which will culminate one day in the ultimate Promised Land of the New Heavens and the New Earth. It is not a matter of prioritizing either this world or the next, as Steven suggested. Rather, as those who have been redeemed and look forward to our ultimate redemption, we at the same time seek to be redeemers, wanting to right the wrongs of this world wherever we find them, and joining God in his mission to reverse the curse.

    Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  23. AMC: "In large part it appears to me that Steve's political views are conditioned by the sub-culture he finds himself in."

    I don't. I think Steve's political views are conditioned by his theology. If one makes the argument that his theology constitutes "the subculture he finds himself in" then I suppose one could make that argument.

    Politics is applied theology. Steve's politics (IMHO) comes from the foundation of his theology. Further, Steve fulfills the Great Two Commandments. His political analysis flows downstream from there.

    -------

    P.S. I would respond to first-time commenter JT, but I suspect that he prefers a personal reply from Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I like what John Piper said to the recent Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization:

    "One truth is that when the gospel takes root in our souls it impels us out toward the alleviation of all unjust suffering in this age. That’s what love does!

    The other truth is that when the gospel takes root in our souls it awakens us to the horrible reality of eternal suffering in hell, under the wrath of a just and omnipotent God. And it impels us to rescue the perishing, and to warn people to flee from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10).

    I plead with you. Don’t choose between those two truths. Embrace them both. It doesn’t mean we all spend our time in the same way. God forbid. But it means we let the Bible define reality and define love.

    Could Lausanne say—could the evangelical church say—we Christians care about all suffering, especially eternal suffering? I hope we can say that. But if we feel resistant to saying “especially eternal suffering,” or if we feel resistant to saying “we care about all suffering in this age,” then either we have a defective view of hell or a defective heart.

    I pray that Lausanne would have neither."

    (H/T to Justin Taylor)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I often see people from outside of the United States criticizing political conservatives who live in America, suggesting that we should learn from other nations or suggesting that we may not realize the faults of our own system as well as others do. Part of the problem with that approach is the poor record of those other nations. How much leadership have those other nations provided? How much money do they give other nations (through their governments and through charity), how much have their militaries fought for the freedom of other nations, how much have their people supported missionary efforts and other Christian work, etc. in comparison to the United States? How many other nations are in a position to instruct the United States on such matters? And even where the United States is deficient, why are we supposed to think that bigger government, like more government involvement in healthcare, is the answer? Those of you who think we should have a significantly bigger government role in healthcare can begin your argument by explaining where we should get the money for it and why we should trust a government that's been so incompetent on issues like social security.

    I don't deny that the United States is deficient in many ways. And I don't deny that some other nations are better in some contexts. In many cases, I don't know. I haven't studied the issues enough. But those of you who want to criticize the United States about these things, or who want to criticize American conservatives in particular, should do more than make vague references to caring for the poor, healthcare reform, etc. I've written more about this subject here and here.

    I don't think Steve's post suggests "forcing Jesus into the American political peg-hole". If you're a Christian and you live in the United States, then it makes sense to think about American politics in relation to Jesus. That doesn't "force" Him into any "peg-hole".

    JT says "To prioritize spiritual redemption over physical redemption is, in my opinion, a form of gnosticism rather than orthodoxy." But Gnostics are usually associated with rejection of the physical, not merely giving the spiritual a higher priority. And where's the argument that Steve has prioritized in an unbiblical way? Claiming that he did it doesn't demonstrate that he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. JT:

    I detect undertones of liberation theology and confused American-style folk eschatology in your comments. Maybe that's wholly inaccurate, but you come across as a modern, "missional" kinda dude. Is that fair?

    Have you made it your goal to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven by "doing unto the least of these," even if that means outsourcing what you believe to be the Church's work to the godless sociopaths in gubmint? Have you been convinced that "the Gospel is something we live, not something we preach(/believe)"? Have you taken a modern/seeker-sensitive approach to church-planting? Have you checked Roger Olson's blog? Bet you'd dig it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. NICK SAID:

    "What caught my eye especially was the comment supposedly in favor of traditional marriage, despite the hugely ironic fact that even the most "conservative" end of Protestantism allows marriage destroying sins like divorce and contraception (among other things)."

    That's because Scripture permits divorce under some circumstances–your bumbling exegesis to the contrary notwithstanding. Scripture also allows for contraception.

    Conversely, Catholicism has the huge loop-hole of annulment. In addition, Catholicism also allows for contraception: it simply draws a makeshift distinction between "natural" and "artificial" contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  28. aztexan:

    Thanks for the chance to clarify. I do find the "missional" movement very compelling. My "mentors" as a church planter include Keller, Driscoll, and Chandler, each of whom have contributed leadership to the movement while remaining theologically orthodox. So no, I do not believe in or promote Liberation Theology (by which I believe you mean a Marxist-materialist gospel entirely or at least primarily concerned with physical/natural priorities a la the Catholic priests of Latin America of the 1960s). I'm advocating a both-and approach to spiritual and physical redemption rather than either-or.

    I also am not advocating some type of Manifest Destiny postmillennialism. I am amillennial as I understand Steve to be from his profile.

    Truth Unites' quote of Piper really hits on what I'm trying to say: that we lose aspects of the fullness of the Gospel when we put it in the social and political terms of the U.S. at the beginning of the 21st century. Perhaps the shortcoming is in our two-party system which forces the either-or mentality upon us. I believe that when Christians choose and then advocate political sides (whether liberal or conservative) in our American system we see Jesus' message co-opted, leaving the "other half" of the country with the perception that the Church is little more than a political advocacy group (think: irrelevant). No, I'm definitely not advocating outsourcing and I think I'm tracking closely with Augustine's arguments in City of God on this one.

    I believe the whole preach-the-gospel/live-the-gospel thing is another false dichotomy. The two are completely intertwined in the Great Commission and elsewhere and are always synergistic rather than opposed in any way.

    As to whether or not I'm one of those missional dudes, I guess you'll have to decide. I can honestly say that while I do have one out-of-sight tattoo and I like beer and U2, I also bathe regularly, have never had a goatee, and don't hang out barefoot at Starbucks. Your verdict?

    ReplyDelete
  29. HACKSAW DUCK SAID:

    "No, I realize the 'hate' usage was nonliteral. But it still shows a disregard of some kind for the nuclear family that modern evangelicals would find abhorrent."

    Modern evangelical theology doesn't take the position that family ties should exceed our allegiance to Jesus. Loyalty to God always comes first. In many cases, serving God is complementary with our domestic obligations.

    But, in context, Jesus is dealing with a situation where Jewish followers of Jesus would be shunned by their family and community. Disowned by their family, excommunicated by the synagogue, and ostracized by the Jewish community in general. In situations like that (and modern analogues), the cost of discipleship requires a Christian to follow Jesus no matter what rather than abandon the faith.

    Evangelicalism doesn't affirm a Mafia code of unquestioning, unconditional allegiance to the in-group.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AMC SAID:

    "I love reading Steve's posts (I read triablogue every day) but have always felt he is at his weakest on political matters and cultural criticism."

    That's too vague to merit a response.

    "In large part it appears to me that Steve's political views are conditioned by the sub-culture he finds himself in."

    Of course, that cuts both ways. Aussies and Kiwis are not exempt from cultural conditioning.

    "I also get the feeling that a lot of Americans oppose healthcare reform out of selfishness rather than because of inference from Biblical data or sound social benefit/detriment analysis."

    I also get the feeling that a lot of foreigners dump on America out of nationalistic envy and resentment of American cultural, economic, and military dominance rather than because of inference from Biblical data or sound social benefit/detriment analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AMC said:
    ---
    I also get the feeling that a lot of Americans oppose healthcare reform out of selfishness rather than because of inference from Biblical data or sound social benefit/detriment analysis.
    ---

    So if I were to go to your house and help myself to the food in your fridge and you objected, could I respond that you're objecting because you're so selfish?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Peter,

    Nice ad-hominem. It's the typical type of comment that reflects a terrible misunderstanding of the situation, notably the fact the percentages for those sins is as bad if not worse in Protestant churches, public schools, and broken families with "live in" boyfriends. (But not much hype can be stirred up if the media chooses to do stories on them.)


    Steve,

    That's just it, the Bible does not permit divorce under certain circumstances, that's a serious exegetical error. The only thing Christ's "except" clause applies to is "divorce" BEFORE marriage (which is not the same as divorce after marriage).

    Annulment isn't divorce by definition, unless you believe a valid marriage takes place whenever one person goes through a wedding ceremony with another person regardless of other circumstances (e.g. one of them is already married).

    As for Scripture allowing contraception, you'd be hard pressed to prove that (quite the opposite, in fact). Taking that approach demolishes any foundation from which to even build sexual morality (effectively making masturbation and homosexuality OK since all these stand on the same principles).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jason Engwer said: "The Republican party is more Christian. Yes, it's a corrupt party, despite the fact that it's the better of the two."

    Until the authority of government is founded on He who gives it authority in the first place, all human parties, governments, systems will be deficient.

    It is not that one party is more Christian than another, rather it is either that one party contains more Christian's than an other, or one party's principles better approximate Christian principles.

    Having said that, I believe the concept of 'party' (thank you very much Edmund Burke) is fundamentally deficient for reflecting God's corporate strategy for governance in a sin ladened world; since when God did manifest His corporate election Biblically, it was an entire nation (modeled as a kingdom), a unified people, who were selected to embody this example.

    For when they were blessed they were unified, and when they were cursed they were divided, the idea of factionalism in governance is fundamentally un-Biblical (which is why the democratic expression of peoples can be seen prophetically as waters [Rev 17:15])

    So, if the "party" were a nation, and the "nation" was the party, that would be a more Biblically consistent view.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nick said:
    ---
    It's the typical type of comment that reflects a terrible misunderstanding of the situation...
    ---

    Your self-inspection is astute.

    And how, exactly, is it ad hominem of me to point out priest abuse? Presumably, you'd argue it's not ad hominem of you to claim Protestants are all just out committing adultery.

    In any case, it's not like my church has a habit of transfering known adulterers to other areas where they can continue sinning. Unlike, you know, the Vatican, who has no problem shipping priests about the country so they can demonstrate the new TSA procedures to more altar boys.

    You said:
    ---
    (But not much hype can be stirred up if the media chooses to do stories on them.)
    ---

    You mean like how the media ignored Ted Haggard? Who, mind you, didn't rape an altar boy, but instead bought a prostitute for his deeds.

    If you think the media is sympathetic to evangelicals, then you're even less connected to reality than a reality TV show.

    ReplyDelete
  35. JT: Now that you put it that way, ya got my vote. I would only ask: Who among us Calvinist/Reformed types would object? Your points are so self-evident amongst clueful Christians that one is tempted to say, "Yes. And...your point?" However, even the choir can benefit from hearing a good ol' sermon repeated from time to time. Good points all.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JT wrote:

    "Perhaps the shortcoming is in our two-party system which forces the either-or mentality upon us. I believe that when Christians choose and then advocate political sides (whether liberal or conservative) in our American system we see Jesus' message co-opted, leaving the 'other half' of the country with the perception that the Church is little more than a political advocacy group (think: irrelevant)."

    There are Communists in the United States and in other nations. Some people are anarchists. Should Christians avoid "taking sides" in a way that would be objectionable to Communists and anarchists?

    Truth itself "forces the either-or mentality upon us".

    If Jesus' message has political implications, and it does, then how is it "co-opting Jesus' message" to follow those political implications to their conclusion? If we follow Jesus' message to its implied conclusion on an ethical issue, does it follow that we're allowing ethics to "co-opt Jesus' message"? And how does taking a side on a political issue suggest that a group is "little more than a political advocacy group"? It doesn't. The same Christians who take political positions also pray, evangelize, baptize, study scripture, and do many other things that aren't usually classified as political advocacy. If people are ignoring all of those other things and looking only at those Christians' political involvement, then who's to blame? The Christians or their critics? Their critics are to blame. They're being unreasonable. And Christians aren't obligated to accommodate unreasonableness. Accommodating it may make sense in some circumstances, if some larger good can be accomplished. But given the significance of politics and the highly irrational nature of the objection you're referring to, why should Christians give up the significant benefits of political involvement in order to accommodate such an unreasonable objection? If your neighbor told you that it offends him when you attend church, because he thinks you're going there to conspire against him with other people, would you accommodate his objection by no longer attending church? I doubt it. The benefits of church attendance outweigh the benefits of accommodating such an unreasonable objection.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "If Jesus' message has political implications, and it does, then how is it "co-opting Jesus' message" to follow those political implications to their conclusion?"

    Hi Jason,

    By any chance, are you familiar with the radical two-kingdom theology espoused by Dr. Darryl Hart and others?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Truth Unites... and Divides,

    I only have a little familiarity with the movement and with that individual.

    ReplyDelete
  39. NICK SAID:

    "That's just it, the Bible does not permit divorce under certain circumstances, that's a serious exegetical error."

    As if your assertion makes it so.

    " The only thing Christ's 'except' clause applies to is 'divorce' BEFORE marriage (which is not the same as divorce after marriage). "

    As if your assertion makes it so. Moreover, the Matthean passage is not the only grounds for divorce. There's also the Corinthian passage.

    "Annulment isn't divorce by definition."

    Suttee isn't murder by definition. Just as Hindus. Abortion isn't murder by definition. Just ask SCOTUS.

    Your denomination simply redefines a marriage as a non-marriage.

    "...unless you believe a valid marriage takes place whenever one person goes through a wedding ceremony with another person regardless of other circumstances (e.g. one of them is already married)."

    The Vatican has a long history of granting annulments for political expediency. The Vatican is a purvey of divorce.

    "As for Scripture allowing contraception, you'd be hard pressed to prove that (quite the opposite, in fact)."

    That's unfortunately for sin, since your own denomination sanctions contraception (e.g. the rhythm method).

    "Taking that approach demolishes any foundation from which to even build sexual morality (effectively making masturbation and homosexuality OK since all these stand on the same principles)."

    Another tendentious assertion. But I expect that from you. Your like a 1st grader who believes whatever his 1st grade teacher tells him, does whatever his 1st grade teacher tells him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Steve,

    You keep responding with "as if your assertion makes it so," when you're ignoring the fact I've *defending* and *substantiated* my claim(s).

    If anyone here is asserting without substantiating their claims, it's you.

    You said: the Matthean passage is not the only grounds for divorce. There's also the Corinthian passage.

    There is no corresponding Corinthian passage, unless you're taking the (weak and false) argument the WCF makes regarding "abandonment" (not pornia).

    You said: "Your denomination simply redefines a marriage as a non-marriage."

    Do you have proof for this, or are you trying to take a desperate swipe?

    You said: "The Vatican has a long history of granting annulments for political expediency. The Vatican is a purvey of divorce."

    You're clearly dodging the solid and direct argument I'm making: if two folks go through a wedding ceremony, does that very fact entail a real marriage, irregardless of factors such as whether or not one of the parties is already married?

    An annulment is simply that realization, the finding that something impeded a real marriage from taking place.


    You said: "That's unfortunately for sin, since your own denomination sanctions contraception (e.g. the rhythm method)."

    The Catholic position is more nuanced than that, for example there is no "frustrating the marital act," rendering it inherently sterile, as contraception does. The Catholic position is always open to life, even if the likelihood of conception is reduced at the time, and is built on the premise that it is not *intrinsically* a sin to have relations if one of the partners is sterile or infertile (at the time). In the Catholic cases, God ultimately controls the biology, including periods of infertility.

    The contraceptive approach is essentially using the partner for masturbation purposes. See this thread where Dr Scott Clark got himself all tangled up on this issue when I pointed out he had no solid grounds to oppose homosexuality after embracing contraception.


    You said: Another tendentious assertion. But I expect that from you. Your like a 1st grader who believes whatever his 1st grade teacher tells him, does whatever his 1st grade teacher tells him.

    Unfortunately, it seems to be the other way around. All too often, you're more talk than substance, and either parrot or insult when faced with arguments you can't handle.

    ReplyDelete
  41. NICK SAID:

    “You keep responding with ‘as if your assertion makes it so,’ when you're ignoring the fact I've *defending* and *substantiated* my claim(s).”

    Except that your “defenses” consist of more assertions.

    “There is no corresponding Corinthian passage, unless you're taking the (weak and false) argument the WCF makes regarding ‘abandonment’ (not pornia).”

    Another one of your assertions. Thanks for corroborating my allegation.

    “Do you have proof for this, or are you trying to take a desperate swipe?”

    They prove it by their actions.

    “You're clearly dodging the solid and direct argument I'm making: if two folks go through a wedding ceremony, does that very fact entail a real marriage, irregardless of factors such as whether or not one of the parties is already married?”

    You’re attacking a straw man since you can’t deal with the real issue. For instance, how is arguing that a marriage ceremony absent consummation is a “real marriage.”

    “An annulment is simply that realization, the finding that something impeded a real marriage from taking place.”

    That’s the propagandistic claim, which doesn’t correspond to the real world policy.

    “The Catholic position is always open to life…”

    The rhythm method is a calculated attempt to evade that possibility.

    “In the Catholic cases, God ultimately controls the biology, including periods of infertility.”

    God ultimately controls biochemistry, including the pill.

    “The contraceptive approach is essentially using the partner for masturbation purposes.”

    Only if you redefine “masturbation” to mean non-masturbation.

    “See this thread where Dr Scott Clark got himself all tangled up on this issue when I pointed out he had no solid grounds to oppose homosexuality after embracing contraception.”

    I’m not Scott Clark.

    “All too often, you're more talk than substance, and either parrot or insult when faced with arguments you can't handle.”

    I realize that it’s a blow to your inflated ego, but you’re simply regurgitating stock arguments for the Catholic position on annulment, divorce, and contraception that anyone can find for himself.

    It’s not as if I haven’t debated the Catholic position before. The fact that you came to the party after everybody else went home is your problem, not mine.

    ReplyDelete