|
Post by christopher on Aug 20, 2012 8:50:48 GMT -8
It would be a serious insult to God if we didn't at least provide a closing statement to satisfy the curiosity of whoever might have been following (or will later follow) this thread. How could we stumble our brothers and sisters so?
I will let you go first since I'm not available to do it until after work tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 20, 2012 11:02:13 GMT -8
I'm afraid to go first! Okay, I will, but I hope it doesn't start all over again
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 20, 2012 13:49:30 GMT -8
Okay, let's go back to the revised statement I put forward earlier (words in brackets are mine):
" But where I part company with the majority of my Christian brothers is when they try to impose [more subjective] Kingdom values [that the world doesn't normally accept] on those outside the Kingdom."
I think we are pretty much in agreed on this statement as it stands.
Where we still differ is the degree to which we believe Christians ought to cooperate with, utilize, or appeal to government powers to enforce less subjective, more universally accepted kingdom values (like prophibitions against murder, theft, sexual abuse, etc..)
Personally, I think we should encourage our government toward enforcing justice, and see them as a part of God's purposes in the world. A limited and usually flawed part, but a part nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 20, 2012 20:39:22 GMT -8
Oh good, gotcha where I want ya Kidding aside, I'll just make my final statement and be done. If you have anything further to add, feel free. I don't see any need to close the thread altogether. My premise is that, although God ordains secular kingdoms for His purposes, His kingdom is completely separate and "other than" any worldly kingdom (Caesar). Therefore, His devoted subjects are to be about the work he has commissioned and have as little to do with the politics of the Caesar as possible. You brought up a good point in our verbal conversation when you asked "what if a Christian feels led by God to engage in politics?" (which is what George W Bush said before he ran for president). To that I said let him do what his conscience tells him to do, because not to would be a sin. I would seriously question the validity of such a claim given my view on this, but it's not mine to judge the motives of another's servant. That's the paradox Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians how something that is not a sin can become a sin if it violates conscience. Also, I see nothing wrong with "appealing to Caesar" as Paul did, within the parameters of the law, to defend oneself or even someone else from an injustice. The Kingdom of God is about reforming hearts, not law. I think societies have a kind of "soul" of their own (if you will) and the Christians business is to work on that. If we do that, I think it naturally follows that the morality of that society improves and Caesar's policies begin to reflect that ethic organically rather than through political means by some "moral majority" or "Christian coalition". Think of healthcare, education, and caring for the needy (elderly, widows, and orphans, etc). We can (and do) debate about the means that governments go about attaining those ends, but I think everyone can agree that the cause (in it's purist and untainted form) is a noble one. Most of those things are kingdom values, but they are now also the values of many or most societies. Though they have not always been. Christians should be leading by example in these areas and letting Caesar follow if he will, even if he thinks it was all his idea. But even if he doesn't follow, we should do it anyway because that is what our King commanded us to do. Anyway, that's all I really have to say on the subject. Again, feel free to add more if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2012 20:47:03 GMT -8
stevekimes,
I'm curious to hear you chime in on this a bit, if possible.
Have you "appealed to Caesar" or sought to work together with government at times in your ministry?
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Feb 21, 2015 5:48:45 GMT -8
I believe there is a distinct, separating difference between Moral government [God's kingdom] and Civil government [nations of men, particularly the American Republic].
Morality is a thing of the inner man with outward actions. Civility is outward action regardless of inner thoughts or feelings and convictions.
Civil government is there to protect people from uncivil behavior. We are to be protected in our persons and our private property. These rights are God given and inalienable.
What I think is the depth God goes into, which man cannot, for he cannot change anyone's character and cannot know one's motives. Hence politicians cannot legislate morality. They can only legislate civility. It is not civil behavior to steal your neighbor's lawn mower. It is also uncivil to punch that neighbor in the nose for stealing it. The order of law decides such matters. You may hate your neighbor but, the law cannot touch that for it cannot know it or change it. Only God can see that, and judge accordingly.
Any law devised to change man's thinking, rather than protect the inalienable rights we have of God is wrong. Laws against alcoholic beverages were designed to stop drinking. They failed because they were designed to change man's moral behavior when he got drunk. So now, we have laws against drunk driving which are basically worthless because people do drink and drive anyway and kill people every single day. Men are dark and will do dark things until converted and government cannot convert anyone. It is not uncivil to drink. It is not doing your temple a bit of good, and doing it harm but, that is an issue before God, not men. It is not uncivil to drive. It is not uncivil to drink and drive. It is uncivil to hurt or kill someone with your car because you have driven it while intoxicated.
Abortion is not about a woman's body. She is carrying another body within her, a body which at certain stages in the beginning, fights against the mother's body trying to kill it within the immune system. If God did not create preventative measures life could not exist. So, killing the unborn is uncivil. It is taking a life which government is sworn to protect by law and inalienable right given of God. Regardless of the morality question murder is uncivil behavior. Government, elected civil servants in America's case, are supposed to protect the citizenry with just laws designed to do so.
If the distinction is made between moral and civil government things would stay, somewhat, balanced. It is a balancing act the Founders knew had inherent difficulties but, they also saw it was the best man could have, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Feb 21, 2015 6:00:01 GMT -8
Paul appealed to Caesar to have an opportunity to witness to Caesar, as much as availing himself of a citizenry which had laws protecting them. He appealed to Caesar to protect his person and freedom, a God-given right, regardless of whether or not Rome understood that.
It would have been uncivil for Rome to see Paul punished for having a faith and conviction differing from other Jews. Romans had rights by law. Paul was a Roman. Original Roman laws, which they violated themselves within Paul's lifetime, were more just. Paul would not have lost his head in old Rome.
|
|