LGBT and Christian Persecution

[GaryK]

I'd also, by way of addendum to my post about incoherence, mention that Dan's situating himself in Option 2 whilst being in opposition to the death penalty is in no way incoherent. The way of Christ brings to bear in his thinking a radical valuation of all human life, no matter the circumstance or evil a life may have engaged in. He applies that value to his judgements about actions that the state takes to perform its police functions and determines that, a state doesn't need to put to death certain criminals in order to adequately police society and mitigate the spread of evil. Indeed, a state should, insofar as it can, lean towards the preservation of all human life whilst performing its police function.

Perhaps Dan is his wrong in his assessments about the inefficacy of the death penalty, or perhaps he's right. That's debatable. He is not though, incoherent.

I also see no incoherence in this view of the death penalty.

Well...I guess I am the only one then that thinks it is incoherent. If in fact the state is doing the will of God when it wields the sword, then I don't see how opposing said sword wielding (example capital punishment) isn't incoherent. For me I can't in my mind condone a certain action as God's will and then also oppose it as "not the way of Jesus" without feeling deeply incoherent.

If Jesus is the perfect representation of God, and if it is that confidence in the life and witness of Jesus that spurs our rejection of violence and capital punishment, in favor of the way of the cross, then I can't simultaneously, without feeling incoherent, advocate that the violence/sword of government is needed and makes a better society.

I'd like to hear from Gary...as I am suspicious he feels same as me on this point (albeit from the other side). I think that is what he is putting his finger on. How can one endorse a violent God-ordained institution and then at the same time criticize the use of said violence.

If they are ministers they are ministers. If they capitally punish Ted Bundy they are doing what God wants them to do and it is a positive good for society. If they wield capital violence for the sake ending slavery, then that is a positive good for society. In essence this is what I hear you, HK, arguing. Government has improved/saved/bettered society by using violence to end slavery...in a way that suffering love is/was simply incapable of.

My view is that God is big enough to do all things right even if accepting that reality at times may seem incoherent to us humans. This is one reason I generally do not condemn or condone what political systems do. I'm simple enough to believe that God is fully in His right to be involved in things at times that I don't understand.

[GaryK]

Recall that Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees because of their positional authority, while simultaneously calling out their hypocrisy:

Add to that this passage, which seems to suggest the Lord at times deals with His children in not so pleasant ways:

Hebrews 12:6–8 (ESV): 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Discipline is a word with a negative connotation for us...but a better rendering is perhaps "disciples." Jesus discipled/disciplined his 12, however he didn't violate them. Did he rebuke them? Sure...I am for confrontation and rebuke.

I was thinking more of the word chastise.

[HondurasKeiser]

I'd also, by way of addendum to my post about incoherence, mention that Dan's situating himself in Option 2 whilst being in opposition to the death penalty is in no way incoherent. The way of Christ brings to bear in his thinking a radical valuation of all human life, no matter the circumstance or evil a life may have engaged in. He applies that value to his judgements about actions that the state takes to perform its police functions and determines that, a state doesn't need to put to death certain criminals in order to adequately police society and mitigate the spread of evil. Indeed, a state should, insofar as it can, lean towards the preservation of all human life whilst performing its police function.

Perhaps Dan is his wrong in his assessments about the inefficacy of the death penalty, or perhaps he's right. That's debatable. He is not though, incoherent.

I also see no incoherence in this view of the death penalty.

Well...I guess I am the only one then that thinks it is incoherent. If in fact the state is doing the will of God when it wields the sword, then I don't see how opposing said sword wielding (example capital punishment) isn't incoherent. For me I can't in my mind condone a certain action as God's will and then also oppose it as "not the way of Jesus" without feeling deeply incoherent.

If Jesus is the perfect representation of God, and if it is that confidence in the life and witness of Jesus that spurs our rejection of violence and capital punishment, in favor of the way of the cross, then I can't simultaneously, without feeling incoherent, advocate that the violence/sword of government is needed and makes a better society.

I'd like to hear from Gary...as I am suspicious he feels same as me on this point (albeit from the other side). I think that is what he is putting his finger on. How can one endorse a violent God-ordained institution and then at the same time criticize the use of said violence.

If they are ministers they are ministers. If they capitally punish Ted Bundy they are doing what God wants them to do and it is a positive good for society. If they wield capital violence for the sake of ending slavery, then that is a positive good for society. In essence this is what I hear you, HK, arguing. Government has improved/saved/bettered society by using violence to end slavery...in a way that suffering love is/was simply incapable of.

Because not all violence...or coercion...or force is the same. As you admitted in your response to Joey: "I don't think I would say intrinsically evil". So I think Dan would say, as would I, that as a result of the fallenness of the world and the sinfulness of all of us, government use of violence and coercion is necessary to keep us from a true State of Nature or chaos or a Post-Apocalyptic dystopia. Governments though can misuse that power and exceed their writ - Dan thinks that's the case with the death penalty...I'm not so sure. But simply by dint of the fact that they're God's ministers does not mean every action they take is blessed, good or just. That line of thinking is the one used by James I & VI, Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. Governments or rulers are not their own measure of justice, there is a standard that they need to strive towards and we see that standard being laid out in the OT when God sends prophets no just to Israel but also places like Nineveh and Babylon to make them aware that they in fact owe their position to the will of God and are subject to his Justice based on how they approximate it in their rule.
Yes, government used violence to end slavery in a way that the Church was preternaturally incapable of doing at the time. Perhaps if the church had tried following Jesus instead of worshipping the nation or the region or money or positional privilege, it would have been unnecessary, but the fact remains that they failed and as a result the state had to step in and use their God-ordained authority to end an unconscionable injustice.

[joshuabgood]

Because not all violence...or coercion...or force is the same. As you admitted in your response to Joey: "I don't think I would say intrinsically evil". So I think Dan would say, as would I, that as a result of the fallenness of the world and the sinfulness of all of us, government use of violence and coercion is necessary to keep us from a true State of Nature or chaos or a Post-Apocalyptic dystopia. Governments though can misuse that power and exceed their writ - Dan thinks that's the case with the death penalty...I'm not so sure. But simply by dint of the fact that they're God's ministers does not mean every action they take is blessed, good or just. That line of thinking is the one used by James I & VI, Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. Governments or rulers are not their own measure of justice, there is a standard that they need to strive towards and we see that standard being laid out in the OT when God sends prophets no just to Israel but also places like Nineveh and Babylon to make them aware that they in fact owe their position to the will of God and are subject to his Justice based on how they approximate it in their rule.
Yes, government used violence to end slavery in a way that the Church was preternaturally incapable of doing at the time. Perhaps if the church had tried following Jesus instead of worshipping the nation or the region or money or positional privilege, it would have been unnecessary, but the fact remains that they failed and as a result the state had to step in and use their God-ordained authority to end an unconscionable injustice.

I understand your thinking. Though if one advocates for the OT as the lens - which I hear you doing...I am not sure that gets us to abolitionism, or ending the genocide, or stopping the executing of the innocent.

But my question remains - do you believe that suffering love does in fact have more utility in defeating evil and preserving society than does violence? Or is it more a matter of, violence actually does have more utility for making society better (re slavery)?

[temporal1]

GaryK:
My view is that God is big enough to do all things right even if accepting that reality at times may seem incoherent to us humans.
This is one reason I generally do not condemn or condone what political systems do.

I'm simple enough to believe that God is fully in His right to be involved in things at times that I don't understand.

This is a great place to be. ^^^
i tend to be impatient, it’s a struggle. But, time+again, God has proven best, and not even close.

HK:
.. Yes, government used violence to end slavery in a way that the Church was preternaturally incapable of doing at the time.
Perhaps if the church had tried following Jesus instead of worshipping the nation or the region or money or positional privilege, it would have been unnecessary, but the fact remains that they failed and as a result the state had to step in and use their God-ordained authority to end an unconscionable injustice.

i struggle with “had to.” It’s what the state did. BUT. had to??
i fear when we fall into believing governments “have to” do things, we’re flirting with seeing government as greater than God.

in the above video (which might be annoying to some) T Sowell describes a little of slavery IN CONTEXT OF WORLD HISTORY.
slavery has come+gone throughout history - and it exists today - yet, not all slavery ended in ways that align with the U.S. experience.

this strongly suggests, at all times, God has other options. we are limited, God is unlimited.

i literally have NO doubt, had MLK Jr, 1964, and decades following had NOT happened as they did, God would have been present and not oblivious. Providing.

i’m afraid we-all have inadvertantly made a false idol out of this thing.
i was 14 in 1964. i was clueless then, and watching. after decades of watching - i pretty much agree with Thomas Sowell on most things. (i have no idea if he’s Christian.)

WHAT IF? -
1964 had not happened? i do not believe “things would have stayed the same.” i see that as a false premise.
God provides.

WHAT IF? -
black families would have continued being the solid units they were, eventually “overcoming” difficulties to find their way (as other people groups all over the world have done throughout time).

Thomas Sowell does not buy into idealizing the U.S. path, he looks at evidence of decimated families and widespread destruction.
(not all of this is in this one video.)

My point here is, God cannot be pigeon holed. He, alone, has answers.
Government is a necessary part of earthly life. Not perfect. Not all-knowing. Temporal, not eternal.

When gov acts, there can always be questions of, “what if?”
Christians can rely on, “God provides.” So, no matter, “what if?!” God provides in those times, too.

i realize “the U.S. slavery narrative” is a current huge sacred cow. “this, too, shall pass.” 2 Cor 4:17-18

Thomas Sowell / Evidence
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/814950 ... e-we-might

“If we wanted to be serious about evidence,
we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children [78%] being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent [66%]. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about.”

When we believe gov “has to”/had to, that’s a great time to rethink our beliefs.

[joey_the_ox]

Add to that this passage, which seems to suggest the Lord at times deals with His children in not so pleasant ways:

Discipline is a word with a negative connotation for us...but a better rendering is perhaps "disciples." Jesus discipled/disciplined his 12, however he didn't violate them. Did he rebuke them? Sure...I am for confrontation and rebuke.

I was thinking more of the word chastise.

joshuabgood, are you advocating for putting "disciple" instead of "discipline" in the Hebrews passage? Do you think that fits the context and how the original readers of that passage would have understood it?

[Josh]

Well...my counselor once told me "Josh, you can't really force/coerce anybody to do anything important." This was in the context of my children whom I was trying to coerce into certain behaviors I desired. I was resistant to that at the time. Where I am at now, I have a dim view, generally, of corporal punishment. I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

It is difficult to reconcile an anti-corporal punishment position with scripture.

[Josh]

I understand your thinking. Though if one advocates for the OT as the lens - which I hear you doing...I am not sure that gets us to abolitionism, or ending the genocide, or stopping the executing of the innocent.

None of these things are the message of the New Testament to mankind; they are, however, hobby horses of the progressive-left, which makes me immediately suspicious of those who claim the be-all and end-all of Christianity is these things.

But my question remains - do you believe that suffering love does in fact have more utility in defeating evil and preserving society than does violence? Or is it more a matter of, violence actually does have more utility for making society better (re slavery)?

Being a born-again, spirit-filled believer has more utility in defeating evil. (I'm not sure "preserving society" is necessarily the goal of the Christian.)

"Suffering love" is rather pointless and meaningless outside of the context of being an actual, born-again believer. I note that you keep on circumventing this; do you think that non-Christians should also engage in "suffering love"?

[HondurasKeiser]

Because not all violence...or coercion...or force is the same. As you admitted in your response to Joey: "I don't think I would say intrinsically evil". So I think Dan would say, as would I, that as a result of the fallenness of the world and the sinfulness of all of us, government use of violence and coercion is necessary to keep us from a true State of Nature or chaos or a Post-Apocalyptic dystopia. Governments though can misuse that power and exceed their writ - Dan thinks that's the case with the death penalty...I'm not so sure. But simply by dint of the fact that they're God's ministers does not mean every action they take is blessed, good or just. That line of thinking is the one used by James I & VI, Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. Governments or rulers are not their own measure of justice, there is a standard that they need to strive towards and we see that standard being laid out in the OT when God sends prophets no just to Israel but also places like Nineveh and Babylon to make them aware that they in fact owe their position to the will of God and are subject to his Justice based on how they approximate it in their rule.
Yes, government used violence to end slavery in a way that the Church was preternaturally incapable of doing at the time. Perhaps if the church had tried following Jesus instead of worshipping the nation or the region or money or positional privilege, it would have been unnecessary, but the fact remains that they failed and as a result the state had to step in and use their God-ordained authority to end an unconscionable injustice.

I understand your thinking. Though if one advocates for the OT as the lens - which I hear you doing...I am not sure that gets us to abolitionism, or ending the genocide, or stopping the executing of the innocent.

But my question remains - do you believe that suffering love does in fact have more utility in defeating evil and preserving society than does violence? Or is it more a matter of, violence actually does have more utility for making society better (re slavery)?

I don't think the OT is my lens, simply that we begin to have a vision of the idea that rulers are not their own measure of Justice in the OT or that in the OT God begins to make plain the idea that there is a standard of Justice that finds its source in him and that he expects rulers to conform to it, however imperfectly. That does not mean the full standard is delineated in the OT, just that the process begins there.

No, I do not think suffering love always "works" in the temporal i.e. sometimes you end up dead or sometimes society is not preserved or sometimes suffering love alone will allow evil to continue or even grow. Just like sometimes I have to spank my child, sometimes governments need to use police powers to stop injustices from evil actors. The door you want to open is the same that every mid-century, liberal theologian, enamored of Gandhi tried to open 70 years ago. To act like Jesus people need to follow Jesus in heart, mind and soul - his way of suffering love is not a political strategy for toppling injustices - it's a new way of living that points towards the eternal Kingdom.

[joey_the_ox]

No, I do not think suffering love always "works" in the temporal i.e. sometimes you end up dead or sometimes society is not preserved or sometimes suffering love alone will allow evil to continue or even grow. Just like sometimes I have to spank my child, sometimes governments need to use police powers to stop injustices from evil actors. The door you want to open is the same that every mid-century, liberal theologian, enamored of Gandhi tried to open 70 years ago. To act like Jesus people need to follow Jesus in heart, mind and soul - his way of suffering love is not a political strategy for toppling injustices - it's a new way of living that points towards the eternal Kingdom.

Gandhi infamously said that the Jews should have committed mass suicide as an act of nonviolent resistance in response to the Holocaust, or at least "offered themselves to the butcher’s knife."