|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 21, 2009 9:40:06 GMT -8
I have been defining it as "subvert". And my point is that the Church doesn't always or inherently subvert the government.
Actually, you seem to agree with this when you say:
Your use of the word when in this sentences backs up my point. It is only when a government refuses to cooperate that the Church needs to subvert it.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 21, 2009 20:53:42 GMT -8
I think I'd reword it to say that the government only has authority over the Christian insofar as its laws align with God's. To me, that's subversive whether or not the government is presently cooperating with God or not.
It's like the lone king on the little planet in the story The little prince. He kept commanding the sun to rise, and things that were already going to happen and thinking he had authority to make them obey.
Anyway, I don't think we're quite on the same page here, but close enough to put the thing to rest I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 22, 2009 10:01:28 GMT -8
Perhaps another way of reframing this topic would be to ask, "Can one be a Christian and a king at the same time?"
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Dec 22, 2009 12:08:32 GMT -8
are you seriously asking that question? God is our king. surely a christian can be a king of men.
maybe you meant it in a different way
john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 23, 2009 10:43:15 GMT -8
No, I was serious.
The question was intended to get to the heart of the question of whether there is a fundamental incompatibility between the civil government and the kingdom of God.
Chris and I talked at length last night on this topic at our monthy "Pubagetics" meeting so I think the topic might be a bit exhausted for now though.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 23, 2009 21:04:52 GMT -8
What like King Henry the VIII?  Or do you mean like our modern figurehead type kings? (Are there still kings that rule? Maybe there are but I can't think of any off the top of my head) Well, I don't know the answer to that question. I don't believe we have enough instruction in the bible that addresses the issue. I'd simply have to say: Rom 14:5
Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
NKJV
I will say that what biblical data we do have doesn't appear very favorable towards having kings in the people of God. On the one hand, it seems that God sees it as rejection of His authority (1Sam 8 ), and on the other, He has raised up kings "after his own heart" like David and Josiah. So there's a bit of tension there. It seems God intended to have judges, not kings to govern His people. Even Jesus said to the disciples: Matt 19:28
28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
NKJV
It seems that only Jesus is sitting on the kingly throne and the church sits on the throne of judgment over the church (I take this passage to be a present reality by the way). you wrote: I'm trying to figure out if "fundamentally incompatible" is the same thing as what I was trying to say. I don't think it is. I wouldn't say that they are inherently incompatible per se. What I'd say (and I have no other way of putting it) is that the church is fundamentally and philosophically subversive to the government in that it undermines the governmental authority by virtue of submitting only to King Jesus ultimately. Sometimes the twain meet and cohabitate quite nicely. By all appearances, the government seems to have authority in the Kingdom of God. But like I said before, it's only a vassal and not a sovereign. Caesar can never have ultimate authority over the believer. So in that sense, I still say the Kingdom of God is subversive to the Kingdoms of man. Sorry, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Dec 25, 2009 18:22:03 GMT -8
Ahhh. I see now.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 8, 2010 16:04:06 GMT -8
I think these are blatant examples of infringement on religious liberty. I curious what others think- I'm especially curious if I would find agreement among those who identify themselves as part of the gay community. Am I crazy to think that even those who champion gay rights would see these examples as unfair? You're not crazy. I'm neither part of the gay community nor exactly a champion of gay rights (though it might look that way on this board, but thats because I'm a natural advocatus diaboli) but I tend to sympathize with the cause of these people. Still, I agree your examples are unfair. Generally speaking, religious freedom, as well as any other basic right, finds its natural limit where it collides with other basic rights. Which of the colliding objects of legal protection has the priority has to be analyzed individually. And I'm with Marcus in that I don't think the government has any business being in the marriage license business at all. Christianity is not the inventor of marriage. Hence it has as much or little business in the marriage license sector as the state imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 19, 2010 16:48:00 GMT -8
Mo, I just noticed this old thread that I had meant to respond to. I think I was unclear; I'm not saying that the church ought to conduct marriage licenses like the state does. I guess I was making an argument against licenses period.
To have a church vouch for your marriage commitment should be all a Christian needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 20, 2010 2:01:57 GMT -8
I think I was unclear; I'm not saying that the church ought to conduct marriage licenses like the state does. I guess I was making an argument against licenses period. My quote was a response to Christopher, so you haven't been unclear.  And my point is, that neither the Church, nor the State, nor any other institution has sovereign power over the definition of what marriage is. I go even further than you: the agreement among the lovers is all people in general (Christian or none Christian) need. What if two Christians are stranded on an uninhabited island and there is no church to vouch their marriage? I don't see why I need the State's blessing or the Church's blessing or my neighbours recognition of my marriage. The substantial part of marriage is the committment, not the name you give the relation, in my opinion. Hence, if two homosexuals get a registered civil union and want to call that marriage, so be it. If Christians say that marriage per definition can only be between man and woman and that they don't recognize the homosexual "marriage", that is in itself the problem of the Christian not of the homosexual. Why should they care about someone's opinion they don't even know? Apparantly, they do care but that's their problem then. Unless of course, the reason they do care about third persons is because third persons are throwing their weight around in order to stop them from living their lives in freedom and peace, which many Christians love to do. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 20, 2010 18:57:02 GMT -8
Mo, I must have missed this too. I'm looking for where I said Christianity has the market cornered on marriage for all people, I can't find it. I don't think we disagree too much here. For Christians though, there is one Sovereign over marriage that neither the state nor any other man-made institution (like the RCC  ) has authority over. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 24, 2010 13:50:29 GMT -8
Mo, I must have missed this too. I'm looking for where I said Christianity has the market cornered on marriage for all people, I can't find it. I don't think we disagree too much here. For Christians though, there is one Sovereign over marriage that neither the state nor any other man-made institution (like the RCC ) has authority over. You can stop looking, Chris: you never said Christianity had the market cornered on marriage for all people. I never said you said that either. I made a statement of my own. Sure, I quoted you, but that was necessary because it was your statement that inspired my line of reasoning. However, this line of reasoning is independent of the intentions you had when you wrote your statement. In other words: my intention was not to agree or disagree with you and I wasn’t insinuating anything. I believe we are indeed not too far apart here. I know you are aware that Christian rules on anything are only compelling for Christians as well as I’m aware that Christians don’t feel compelled to follow Caesar’s laws if they stand at odds with God’s laws. However, as long as God, as a possible sovereign over the definition of marriage, doesn’t show up to get things straight, Christian definitions of marriage remain as good or irrelevant as any other and nobody has to accept them. |
|
) has authority over.