Friday, November 19, 2010

Two rights don't make a wrong

JT SAID:

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

To the contrary, that’s a useful way of exposing their real opinion of Jesus.

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…

I didn’t say the physical needs of the world are backloaded. The physical needs are perennial.

…and awaiting fulfillment in the eschaton.

How does it obscure the gospel to state an incontrovertible fact of Biblical eschatology? Is everyone healed in the church age? No. Is everyone immortal in the church age? No. Does everyone have all his physical needs met during the church age? No.

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?

Since you apparently admit that the ultimate satisfaction of both our physical and spiritual needs is backloaded, how is my representation inaccurate? You comparison extends my representation rather than refutes my representation.

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.

Since you admit that my original statement was true, how does your introducionof another true statement negate the truth of my statement? Do two rights make a wrong?

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.

How is that relevant to the point of my post? It wasn’t a priority for him to save everyone or heal everyone. Therefore…what?

I hope you see value in my question.

Actually, I don’t.

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.

You have a problem following the argument. I was responding to many Catholics and some evangelicals on their own terms. Those who voted for Obama. Those who say Christians should vote for Democrats.

If you object, then you ought to direct your objection to them as well. But I don’t see you doing that.

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.

Once again, how does that refute the point of the post?

To prioritize spiritual redemption over physical redemption is, in my opinion, a form of gnosticism rather than orthodoxy.

Let’s see. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t heal everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t enrich everyone. I made the factual observation that Jesus didn’t preach about carbon emissions, &c.

Is it “gnostic” to note the actual content of his message? Is it “gnostic” to note what he did or didn’t say?

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.

Actually, I don’t see where the Bible says anything about “social injustice.” The Bible does have lots to say about “injustice” and “injustice,” so why do we need the adjective?

“Social justice” has become a code word for a liberal social agenda. What’s wrong with plain old “justice.”

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.

Which misses the point of my post.

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.

i) I’m all for medical science–as well as medical missionaries. However, that’s not going to reverse the curse. Only the return of Christ will make us immortal and disease-free.

ii) As a practical matter, I don’t know how you propose to pursue global justice for the oppressed. Through the UN Commission on Human Rights? Through the International Court of Justice? Through wars of liberation?

iii) “Ecological stewardship” sounds like a euphemism for global warmists et al. What did you have in mind, exactly?

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).

i) On the one hand you complain about “gnosticism.” On the other hand you complain about political activism. Seems schizophrenic.

ii) If the “other half” of the country has a misimpression of the Church, that’s a teaching moment. An opportunity to educate the “other half.”

iii) Why shouldn’t we take sides? If, say, one party supports abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia while the other party defends innocent life, why shouldn’t we take sides?

If one party supports honoring your father and mother, while the other party supports honoring “two mommies,” why shouldn’t we take sides?

If one party supports freedom of Christian expression while the other party supports laws to criminalize Christian expression as hate-speech, why shouldn’t we take sides?

16 comments:

  1. It's ironic that with the opportunity to take a stand and take sides in the United States, some Christians don't in this country.

    Maybe Isaiah was misguided after all God spoke through him before he wrote:

    Isa 2:22 Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?

    I'd said "not much", especially when you consider these words:

    Isa 2:9 So man is humbled, and each one is brought low-- do not forgive them!
    Isa 2:10 Enter into the rock and hide in the dust from before
    the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty.

    Isa 2:19 And people shall enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground,
    from before the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth.

    Isa 2:21 ... to enter the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs, from before the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth.

    And we thought Jesus wasn't a terrorist type!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If one party supports freedom of Christian expression while the other party supports laws to criminalize Christian expression as hate-speech, why shouldn’t we take sides?"

    Evidence, please?

    The ACLU sided with Fred Phelps. The ban against holding up Christian signs near funerals was signed into law under the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act by born-again President George W Bush.

    Otherwise, there are no "hate speech" laws in this country to my knowledge. You just can't threaten someone with death (much to the chagrin of Christian Reconstructionists).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that my response wandered at times. I also agree with some of your critique, such as suggesting we talk about "justice" rather than "social justice" and your and Jason's point that offending "the other half" is irrelevant.

    I want to focus back on your original post and try to clarify my objection. I understand the premise of the post as implied via your use of "ought" to be:

    While 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., instead they ought to be more concerned with “family values” like traditional marriage and children, true worship, and bringing people to Christ since that is a prerequisite for participation in the New Eden.

    In other words, I understand your claim to be that Christians ought to prioritize "spiritual/moral" (for lack of a better term) needs over "physical" needs when it comes to voting for politicians. In our context you imply this means voting Republican.

    My critique is that the prioritizing of spiritual/moral needs over physical needs is off-base, and that all needs ought to be viewed as legitimate and in equal need of redemption. Each of my attempts to "extend your representation" were intended to support this point. I'm not trying to refute your claim that spiritual/moral needs are real and ought to be met (I support that claim), only your claim that they ought to be prioritized.

    Reversing the curse happens incrementally, and is one way of referring to sanctification. The curse is incrementally reversed in our souls through the Spirit's work. The curse is also reversed incrementally in the physical world as we work to right injustice and restore brokenness. I don't see how believing ultimate restoration awaits the eschaton is a reason to curb our efforts at redemption now, albeit with a recognition of the limitations we are dealing with.

    I'm certainly not trying to be schizophrenic. My contention is that the Church ought to be holistic in its response to the needs of the world. Neither the Democratic or the Republican party are holistic, therefore neither is the true party of Christians and Christians ought to be free to vote for either party or neither party as they follow the call of the Gospel to redeem the needs of the world. This is why I contend asking the question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" is unhelpful. It's not really the question you're asking, which is actually, "Which American political party and platform does Jesus support?"

    Practically, I believe the Church has the power and resources to "turn the world upside down." I am fascinated with the rise of the Church in the first 3 centuries until it was co-opted by Constantine for political purposes, after which I believe it lost much of it's ability to meet either spiritual/moral or physical needs. During those first centuries the sacrificial living of Christians to care holistically for their neighbors even as those neighbors betrayed them to the authorities reflects the kind of response I believe Jesus calls for today. It is not a dependence on the political structure, nor is it dependence on the healthcare system. It is the Church functioning as a glimpse of Christ on earth. For instance, if we were at our best, we would be in Haiti by the thousands right now (as the Church - not as Americans) with saline drips and antibiotics eradicating cholera and reflecting the Gospel in a terribly dark nation.

    Lastly, ecological stewardship means respect and care for creation, harnessing it and making it fruitful while not harming or destroying it. For instance, I'm highly compelled by the ideas behind Polyface farms. Also, Tim Keller's message "Can Faith Be Green?" on his podcast was formative for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Why shouldn’t we take sides? If, say, one party supports abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia while the other party defends innocent life, why shouldn’t we take sides?"

    Democrats are for murdering unborn babies. Republicans are for delivering unborn babies.

    Just can't aid and abet (i.e., vote for) those who are for murdering unborn babies.

    "If one party supports honoring your father and mother, while the other party supports honoring “two mommies,” why shouldn’t we take sides?"

    One side is Godless Liberals.

    Just can't support the Godless Liberals who subvert God's Divine Design for families.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you that my response wandered and also with your and Jason's critique that offending "the other half" is irrelevant. I want to try to clarify my objection by returning to your original post. I understand the premise of your post to be:

    While 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., instead, Christians ought to prioritize their concern for “family values” like traditional marriage and children, true worship, and bringing people to Christ so they can participate in the New Eden."

    I don't take exception with your claim that Christians ought to seek to meet the "spiritual/moral" needs (for lack of a better term) of the world. I object to prioritizing those needs over "physical" needs. Your claim that spiritual/moral needs are more important leads you to conclude that Christians ought to vote Republican (I assume - again, it's implied in your question, "Would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?")

    I respond that the Church ought to approach the needs of the world holistically and suggest that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are holistically consistent with the Gospel. (You may disagree that the Republican party is at certain points inconsistent with the Gospel, and if so, that would be the rub.) Since neither party is holistic, Christians ought to be free to vote for either party or neither party as they are led by the Gospel.

    I find your question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" off-base since it is not really the question you're asking, which is actually, "If Jesus ran for office in America today, which party platform would he join?"

    My attempts to extend your representation are an effort to demonstrate that we ought to give equal priority to both the spiritual/moral and physical needs of the world. Reversing the curse happens incrementally and is one way of describing sanctification. As the Spirit transforms us the curse is rolled back. Similarly, there is an incremental redemption that we are called to bring to the physical needs of the world. I do not see how believing all needs will only ultimately be fulfilled in the eschaton leads to curbing efforts at incremental redemption of the physical world now, albeit with recognition of our limitations.

    I don't object to your claim that the Church should work to meet the spiritual/moral needs of the world (I completely agree). I object to your contention that those needs take priority over physical needs.

    Practically speaking, I believe the Church has the power and resources to "turn the world upside down." I'm fascinated with the rise of Christianity in the first 3 centuries until it was co-opted by Constantine, after which I believe it lost much of its ability to meet either spiritual/moral or physical needs. The response of Christians during two devastating plagues of that time toward their neighbors who often betrayed them to the authorities is a reflection in my view of what Jesus calls us to.

    If the Church were at its best, we would be in Haiti right now by the thousands with saline drips and antibiotics eradicating cholera and bringing the light of the Gospel to a very dark nation.

    I see ecological stewardship as care and respect for creation, harnessing its resources while not damaging or destroying it. I find the ideology behind Polyface farms compelling. I also found Keller's message "Can Faith Be Green?" on his podcast to be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TUAD writes: "Just can't support the Godless Liberals who subvert God's Divine Design for families."

    So what's your assessment of the characters of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, King David and Solomon, all of whom had multiple wives? Godless?

    ReplyDelete
  7. (My comment kept getting an error for being too long. I'm breaking it in two and if it appears multiple times I apologize.)

    I agree with you that my response wandered and also with your and Jason's critique that offending "the other half" is irrelevant. I want to try to clarify my objection by returning to your original post. I understand the premise of your post to be:

    While 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., instead, Christians ought to prioritize their concern for “family values” like traditional marriage and children, true worship, and bringing people to Christ so they can participate in the New Eden."

    I don't take exception with your claim that Christians ought to seek to meet the "spiritual/moral" needs (for lack of a better term) of the world. I object to prioritizing those needs over "physical" needs. Your claim that spiritual/moral needs are more important leads you to conclude that Christians ought to vote Republican (I assume - again, it's implied in your question, "Would these Evangelicals and Catholic bishops vote for Jesus, or for the Democrat candidate?")

    I respond that the Church ought to approach the needs of the world holistically and suggest that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are holistically consistent with the Gospel. (You may disagree that the Republican party is at certain points inconsistent with the Gospel, and if so, that would be the rub.) Since neither party is holistic, Christians ought to be free to vote for either party or neither party as they are led by the Gospel.

    I find your question, "What if Jesus ran for public office?" off-base since it is not really the question you're asking, which is actually, "If Jesus ran for office in America today, which party platform would he join?"

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. My attempts to extend your representation are an effort to demonstrate that we ought to give equal priority to both the spiritual/moral and physical needs of the world. Reversing the curse happens incrementally and is one way of describing sanctification. As the Spirit transforms us the curse is rolled back. Similarly, there is an incremental redemption that we are called to bring to the physical needs of the world. I do not see how believing all needs will only ultimately be fulfilled in the eschaton leads to curbing efforts at incremental redemption of the physical world now, albeit with recognition of our limitations.

    I don't object to your claim that the Church should work to meet the spiritual/moral needs of the world (I completely agree). I object to your contention that those needs take priority over physical needs.

    Practically speaking, I believe the Church has the power and resources to "turn the world upside down." I'm fascinated with the rise of Christianity in the first 3 centuries until it was co-opted by Constantine, after which I believe it lost much of its ability to meet either spiritual/moral or physical needs. The response of Christians during two devastating plagues of that time toward their neighbors who often betrayed them to the authorities is a reflection in my view of what Jesus calls us to.

    If the Church were at its best, we would be in Haiti right now by the thousands with saline drips and antibiotics eradicating cholera and bringing the light of the Gospel to a very dark nation.

    I see ecological stewardship as care and respect for creation, harnessing its resources while not damaging or destroying it. I find the ideology behind Polyface farms compelling. I also found Keller's message "Can Faith Be Green?" on his podcast to be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JT said...

    "While 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., instead, Christians ought to prioritize their concern for 'family values' like traditional marriage and children, true worship, and bringing people to Christ so they can participate in the New Eden."

    Wrong. Once again, you're not paying attention to the context. I'm not the one who set up the initial contrast. Rather, I'm responding to the way in which professing Christians who vote for Obama and the Democrats frame the issue. And they justify that by acting as if their agenda reflects the priorities of Jesus.

    Also, to answer you on your own terms, liberal policies make things worse, not better. Liberals don't care about results. About workable solutions. They care about symbolic equality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JT: You've lost me again. When I said on the other thread, "Ya got my vote," I was agreeing with your (again, obvious) point that Christians shouldn't allow the political climate to sour us on giving due attention to physical/material needs as we're able; and that it is undesirable (if unavoidable) for either the Left or the Right to co-opt the name of Christ for furthering their agenda. The "yes, duh" factor is why I alluded to "preaching to the choir," and expressed uncertainty as to your overall point.

    Now I'm back to not getting it. My concern remains that you seem to believe that government is somehow to be used by the Church to carry out its work -- that Christians have a responsibility to vote for the candidates who will best defend the weak, feed the poor, etc. That raises all kinds of problems for me. And I'm still uncomfortable with your apparent preoccupation with "rolling back the curse" and so forth. Perhaps I'm oversensitive to such language, but it doesn't sit well with me.

    Just wanted to throw that in; I don't have time now to be more specific and methodical with my critique, and for that I apologize. I'm only reacting to what I perceive to be your general tone. Feel free to ignore this and carry on with Steve -- I'm just going on record here. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve said...

    Wrong. Once again, you're not paying attention to the context. I'm not the one who set up the initial contrast. Rather, I'm responding to the way in which professing Christians who vote for Obama and the Democrats frame the issue. And they justify that by acting as if their agenda reflects the priorities of Jesus.

    Please know that I'm not intentionally trying to avoid the context and somehow redirect you to a new topic. I'm just looking for honest discussion. Even after re-reading the original post, it seems your premise is not merely to deflect the claims of Christians who vote Democratic, but also to advocate for voting Republican. However, I'm happy to drop the issue.

    Also, to answer you on your own terms, liberal policies make things worse, not better. Liberals don't care about results. About workable solutions. They care about symbolic equality.

    I realize these aren't the terms you're looking to engage over. However, your brief response is not plausible. Most Americans would say the liberal policies of Social Security and Medicare make things better and claiming liberals don't care about results is an unsupportable line of reasoning. It's like saying Germans don't like Jews. Obviously the odds are great that some liberals care about results rather than symbolic equality. No doubt this was the expectation of Christians who voted for Obama in 2008.

    Since this is moving further and further off-topic from your original post, perhaps you'll consider engaging more on a future post?

    ReplyDelete
  12. aztexan said...

    "And I'm still uncomfortable with your apparent preoccupation with "rolling back the curse" and so forth. Perhaps I'm oversensitive to such language, but it doesn't sit well with me."

    I have no problem using different language. Perhaps sticking with terms like redemption and sanctification would accurately hit on the idea I'm trying to get at without being a point of contention? For me the goal is to engage, not to put-off through freighted language.

    "My concern remains that you seem to believe that government is somehow to be used by the Church to carry out its work -- that Christians have a responsibility to vote for the candidates who will best defend the weak, feed the poor, etc. That raises all kinds of problems for me."

    Thanks for clarifying. I'm not trying to say that government is somehow to be used by the Church to carry out its work. If that is coming through then I'm glad to be called out on it. What I am trying to say is that when it comes to both preaching and living out the Gospel, the Church should operate independently of government. (I assume this is another Yes-duh issue unless you are a Christian Reconstructionist, etc.).

    My analogy of the early Christians' response to the great plagues of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as well as my reference to Haiti were intended to show this. Instead of waiting for the government via FEMA or the UN or whatever to take the lead, we ought to be on the front lines as the Church, rather than as Americans or government agents.

    At the same time, in a representative government like ours it is still necessary to consider the fullness of the Gospel when voting for a candidate. Government's role is to wield the sword of justice, so we ought to vote for candidates who will pursue justice as defined by the Gospel, not for utilitarian reasons (i.e. so the government does our work for us) but for the sake of forming a society that prevents injustice toward the "weak" whomever they may be.

    One analogy: it was certainly possible to be a Christian in Nazi Germany, but Christians voting for and electing Nazis was horribly unjust and anti-Gospel, even if they didn't vote for the Nazis for racist reasons, but for economic reasons, etc. I hope this makes sense.

    While I'm advocating a solution to this question, I remain unsettled in my own mind on it. I realize this discussion is moving off-topic and don't want to come across as obtuse, so if it is best to drop it pending a future post that might address similar themes, I'm good with that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TUAD writes: "Just can't support the Godless Liberals who subvert God's Divine Design for families."

    James: "So what's your assessment of the characters of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, King David and Solomon, all of whom had multiple wives? Godless?"

    Nope, not Godless. But you are right in that multiple wives are not God's Divine Design for Families.

    BTW James, do you vote for Democrats who legislate for the murder of unborn babies?

    ReplyDelete
  14. JT: "Since neither party is holistic, Christians ought to be free to vote for either party or neither party as they are led by the Gospel."

    Insidious and deceptive garbage.

    By your twisted logic, since neither Adoption Agencies or Planned Parenthood are completely "holistic", Christians ought to be "free" to work for either agency or neither agency.

    Christians should not be aiding and abetting a baby murder factory. And lame excuses that other places aren't holistic either so as to say it's okay to work in a baby murder factory just boggles the mind.

    Same thing with trying to rationalize your vote for the baby-murdering machinations of the liberal Democrats.

    Fool yourself. Quit trying to fool others.

    ReplyDelete
  15. TUAD says...

    Insidious and deceptive garbage. By your twisted logic, since neither Adoption Agencies or Planned Parenthood are completely "holistic", Christians ought to be "free" to work for either agency or neither agency.

    Interesting response, and beneath the descriptive language there's something to consider: does calling for freedom to vote for either or neither political party imply a call for freedom to work in an abortion clinic? I certainly don't think so. 

    The parallel you draw commits the fallacy of hasty generalization as well as setting up a straw man by assigning a different claim to me than the one I made. 

    I find abortion deeply tragic, disturbing, and evil, which is why I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. Yet I still see good reason to defend the freedom of other Christians such as Craig Blomberg to make that choice when it is based on Gospel reasons. 

    I enjoy critiquing others' ideas and having mine critiqued. This isn't insidious. It's loving God with all our minds and it is joining the conversation taking place on Mars Hill.

    If you'd like to continue the conversation, I'm all ears. The idea I'm espousing is widely-held and becoming more so. If it is flawed show us why in a logically coherent way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. JT,

    I'm calling attention to your fallacious reasoning: "Since neither party is holistic"

    Substitute "party" with organization or institution or company.

    Try to comprehend better. Please.

    Also, please go back to the prior thread and read Jason Engwer's excellent comment about the fallacy of drawing an equivalence between Liberals and Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete