Titus and Politics

[MaxPC]

Spotted this today.

Titus 3:9-11
English Standard Version
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

[barnhart]

The scripture is always timely if we take time to notice. I am working on a series on the book of Romans under the theme of kingdom living in an empire.

[MaxPC]

The scripture is always timely if we take time to notice. I am working on a series on the book of Romans under the theme of kingdom living in an empire.

Sounds promising, BH.

[PetrChelcicky]

This antipathy against "stirring up divisions", isn't that a first step into all embourgeoisement and vulgarization of Christianity? I don't know if strife is at the heart of all matters, as Heraclitus said - but wouldn't some old Hebraic authors like Kohelet have said the same? At any case, conflicts begin at least when the stage of animal life has been attained. Thus, conflict is real and is not created by speaking about it! Embourgeoisement: that is the idea that conflicts will disappear if we erect taboos and problems are not spoken about - on the one hand the "post-modern" idea of "social construction" of facts by words - on the other hand the old "Victorian" solution now popular again. Embourgeoisement: creating a little commmunity which hasn't found its peace with the world by looking at it, but by looking away!

And as a self-declared Catholic Max ought to be cautious. Catholicism is famous under the Christian denominations because of its singular defense of rationality, objectivity and logic. But logic implies "divisions", beginning with the division by common genus and specific differentia and ending with the detection that statements can contradict each other.

(You see that I am somewhat sensitive w.r.t. this subject -probably because I myself are a long-time and hardened controversialist.)

[barnhart]

To bolster Peter's point, didn't the initial meaning of "heretic" include the idea of one who chooses, or of one who claims the right to make his own moral judgments. In this modern era, I suppose we are all heretical in this sense.

[Bootstrap]

The scripture is always timely if we take time to notice. I am working on a series on the book of Romans under the theme of kingdom living in an empire.

Can you say more about this? What are you learning?

[MaxPC]

To bolster Peter's point, didn't the initial meaning of "heretic" include the idea of one who chooses, or of one who claims the right to make his own moral judgments. In this modern era, I suppose we are all heretical in this sense.

Quite true, BH. While we all possess free will given to us by God, we are also given Truth in the form of Jesus and the New Testament so that we can decide between right and wrong. There is a right way that gives us graces and a healthy relationship with God. There is also wrong way to live that will endanger one’s soul for all eternity.

Those who perseverate in mental and verbal contortions in order to rationalize their own behaviors and poor choices would do well to simply heed the New Testament teachings regarding a healthy and life-giving relationship with God. For this reason, I am glad to see that you are creating the study of Romans. Today is no different from the early church with one exception: misinformation and disinformation can spread faster thanks to social media.

[barnhart]

The scripture is always timely if we take time to notice. I am working on a series on the book of Romans under the theme of kingdom living in an empire.

Can you say more about this? What are you learning?

It seems to me the purpose of the whole book is direction of how citizens of Jesus' kingdom live in a powerful empire that demands loyalties and authority that belong to Jesus. This more clear when reading it backward, starting in chapter 16 and working toward the beginning. The first priority is identity in Jesus' kingdom then unity within it (14, 15) followed by a structural theory about relating to each other and to government (12 and13). The balance is a deeper look at the theology underlying the inclusion of new covenant believers into right relationship with God.

[Bootstrap]

The scripture is always timely if we take time to notice. I am working on a series on the book of Romans under the theme of kingdom living in an empire.

Can you say more about this? What are you learning?

It seems to me the purpose of the whole book is direction of how citizens of Jesus' kingdom live in a powerful empire that demands loyalties and authority that belong to Jesus. This more clear when reading it backward, starting in chapter 16 and working toward the beginning. The first priority is identity in Jesus' kingdom then unity within it (14, 15) followed by a structural theory about relating to each other and to government (12 and13). The balance is a deeper look at the theology underlying the inclusion of new covenant believers into right relationship with God.

Amen.

This verse was recently applied in a way that seems at odds with what the Bible is saying. Paul did not mean to say that anyone who disagrees strongly with Trump should be shunned. Paul did not mean to say that we must not read things written by Democrats about Trump.

Christian unity is based in Jesus, not in Donald Trump or political conservatism or the Republican Party. We need to speak and act accordingly.

I find the timeline helpful, Ernie.

Yes, Max, the Trump quotes are selected to put him in a bad light, but I think they are accurate.

Jim, am not going to quibble with your preferences, that would violate Titus 3. I simply pointed out the bias held by the Democrat who authored that first timeline and his misuse of the first entry. It qualifies Doggett as "the person who stirs up division."
Titus 3:9-11
English Standard Version
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

As Christians, I think we can profitably look at what Democrats or Republicans are saying and evaluate whether what they are saying is true, think about how Christians are being divided by political loyalties, etc. In fact, if we want to put our own Kingdom first, I think this is something we really should do.

Christians should not be condemning other Christians for believing that a politician says things that are not true or failing to do things that are important to do in a pandemic. We may well disagree about the facts, if so, we can discuss the facts.

[PetrChelcicky]

About using the "stirring up divisions" quotation against the Anti-Trumpers; in this case I agree with Bootstrap. But generally, I suppose that it happens rather seldom that divisions are "stirred up" deliberately, this is rather a pseudo problem; in most cases divisions in speech unfold out of divisions in the human matter: conflicts of needs, wishes and fears. And it IS important to speak about those matters directly (even if it is divisive).
There's where I seem to disagree with Bootstrap who in my eyes is much too involved in this * bickering about Trump as an individual. I am well defending Trump - because defending is always the better way and who defends is at the side of the angels - , but my basic interest is in "the forgotten man" who voted for Trump. And we must not debate here if he was generally forgotten; he was at least forgotten by the Mennonite Church. (One of my first letters to Mennoworld asked why they were so discontent with the vote for Trump. Did they do anything do for jobless workers in Pittsburgh? According to the Mennoworld articles, they didn't. So by what right could they criticise those workers to seek support otherwhere?)

*Edited by Mods.