LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Dan Z]

Just processing this - what I'm hearing as this discussion progresses is differing approaches to the edges of two-Kingdom dualism.

Joshuabgood (and from another direction josh) is arguing for a hard-edged (pacifistic) dualism, where the line of demarcation between the Kingdom of God and the affairs of men is a stark one. Joshuabgood sees all earthly power centers (archys) and their carnally-grounded coercive methods (no matter how well-meaning or temporally positive) as ultimately in opposition to the advance of the transcendent KIngdom of God. For joshuabgood, there is but one "archy," one methodology, and one King - and "of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" - not just in a spiritual/heavenly sense, but in a physical/earthly sense as well. Going back to his early comments about consistency, he believes his is an ideologically cleaner place to be. (The other Josh also has a hard-edged dualism, although his seems to be rooted more in the spiritual depravity and futility he sees outside of the brotherhood of God. Ironically, as an Anabaptist, his approach reminds me of some of the hard-nosed Calvinists I have known through the years ).

Gary's dualism is not as starkly-edged, but it is "clean" nevertheless because it is rooted in robust separatism. Gary recognizes, in Romans 13 and elsewhere, that the ordained work of God occurs both inside and outside of the household of faith, but nevertheless, the Christian is called to remain distanced and uncompromised from the powers and principalities of this age, not judging or involving themself the affairs of men. Gary's approach is also different from joshuabgood's in that it places more of an emphasis on the spiritual than the temporal.

I believe HK and I have a strong dualism as well that separates citizens of Christ's Kingdom from the means and methods of earthly governments, although it is a bit fuzzier-edged, and more pragmatic. It recognizes the centrality of Christ and His Peaceable Kingdom, which we believe will eventually come in fullness "on earth as in heaven", but it also acknowledges that, until that time, the work of God in a fallen world can also occur "outside the perfection of Christ," including through the police function of just governance (Rom 13). I have argued that while our citizenship remains resolutely in Christ's Kingdom, at times we are justified in prophetically voicing our concern when governments act abusively and unjustly, outside of their God-ordained role (something joshuabgood and Gary would not do - for differing reasons).

I hear brother Ox in support of this more pragmatic approach, but I haven't figured out where his edges are yet - although I'm learning more with each post.

[QuietlyListening]

Sometimes we can get so caught up in trying to figure things out, trying to 'understand' why things are happening or not happening that we get away from the fact that we will never understand. I've appreciated reading all the different viewpoints and back and forth but then I scratch my head and wonder if we are trying to figure out what we never will be able to.

I saw this on a friend's Facebook post today and to me it rang true. It is good to know what we believe and why but we can also begin to try to explain the unexplainable. Just my opinion.

Disease may have one set of plans, dictators have their plans, the demons have their plans, and evil people of this world have their plans, but all along the way, at the same time, God has his plans. And those others plans don’t change God’s plans, they must and always do work according to God’s plans.- Kevin DeYoung

[joey_the_ox]

Just processing this - what I'm hearing as this discussion progresses is differing approaches to the edges of two-Kingdom dualism.

Joshuabgood (and from another direction josh) is arguing for a hard-edged (pacifistic) dualism, where the line of demarcation between the Kingdom of God and the affairs of men is a stark one. Joshuabgood sees all earthly power centers (archys) and their carnally-grounded coercive methods (no matter how well-meaning or temporally positive) as ultimately in opposition to the advance of the transcendent KIngdom of God. For joshuabgood, there is but one "archy," one methodology, and one King - and "of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" - not just in a spiritual/heavenly sense, but in a physical/earthly sense as well. Going back to his early comments about consistency, he believes his is an ideologically cleaner place to be. (The other Josh also has a hard-edged dualism, although his seems to be rooted more in the spiritual depravity and futility he sees outside of the brotherhood of God. Ironically, as an Anabaptist, his approach reminds me of some of the hard-nosed Calvinists I have known through the years ).

Gary's dualism is not as starkly-edged, but it is "clean" nevertheless because it is rooted in robust separatism. Gary recognizes, in Romans 13 and elsewhere, that the ordained work of God occurs both inside and outside of the household of faith, but nevertheless, the Christian is called to remain distanced and uncompromised from the powers and principalities of this age, not judging or involving themself the affairs of men. Gary's approach is also different from joshuabgood's in that it places more of an emphasis on the spiritual than the temporal.

I believe HK and I have a strong dualism as well that separates citizens of Christ's Kingdom from the means and methods of earthly governments, although it is a bit fuzzier-edged, and more pragmatic. It recognizes the centrality of Christ and His Peaceable Kingdom, which we believe will eventually come in fullness "on earth as in heaven", but it also acknowledges that, until that time, the work of God in a fallen world can also occur "outside the perfection of Christ," including through the police function of just governance (Rom 13). I have argued that while our citizenship remains resolutely in Christ's Kingdom, at times we are justified in prophetically voicing our concern when governments act abusively and unjustly, outside of their God-ordained role (something joshuabgood and Gary would not do - for differing reasons).

I hear brother Ox in support of this more pragmatic approach, but I haven't figured out where his edges are yet - although I'm learning more with each post.

I like this summary. My own position actually shares some elements of joshuabgood's, even though it often seems as if he and I are in vociferous opposition . There is one true King, King Jesus, and one consequence of this is that there can be no such thing as "secular" politics. The belief that there is such a "cordoned-off" area stems from a false anthropology - namely liberalism (and by this I don't mean "left-wing politics"). I would call myself a postliberal, and part of what I mean by this (there are many "versions" of postliberalism) is summed up well by New Polity (emphasis mine):

The world of family, marriage, and friendship is the real world, the world in which we actually move, and together either ascend toward our Creator or descend toward our tempter. Mankind actually lives in a world defined by our love of God and our love of neighbor, a single love that Christianity identifies as charity. Where that love fails or is yet imperfect we rely upon external order provided by law or contracts. Where that love thrives, we approach society’s telos, the end of the external apparatus of state, law, and coercion and the fulfillment of our natures in union with God. This is the difference that postliberalism brings: rather than finding a place for Christian love in politics, postliberalism realizes that all politics is fulfilled in Christian love.

and also

Liberal society will not be converted by Christian promises of more freedom, more prosperity, more security, more “happiness” – in short, by more liberalism. Liberal society will be converted by the allure of the Gospel that places all these goods within a more fundamental good, which is ultimately the love of God and neighbor.

[HondurasKeiser]

Just processing this - what I'm hearing as this discussion progresses is differing approaches to the edges of two-Kingdom dualism.

Joshuabgood (and from another direction josh) is arguing for a hard-edged (pacifistic) dualism, where the line of demarcation between the Kingdom of God and the affairs of men is a stark one. Joshuabgood sees all earthly power centers (archys) and their carnally-grounded coercive methods (no matter how well-meaning or temporally positive) as ultimately in opposition to the advance of the transcendent KIngdom of God. For joshuabgood, there is but one "archy," one methodology, and one King - and "of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" - not just in a spiritual/heavenly sense, but in a physical/earthly sense as well. Going back to his early comments about consistency, he believes his is an ideologically cleaner place to be. (The other Josh also has a hard-edged dualism, although his seems to be rooted more in the spiritual depravity and futility he sees outside of the brotherhood of God. Ironically, as an Anabaptist, his approach reminds me of some of the hard-nosed Calvinists I have known through the years ).

Gary's dualism is not as starkly-edged, but it is "clean" nevertheless because it is rooted in robust separatism. Gary recognizes, in Romans 13 and elsewhere, that the ordained work of God occurs both inside and outside of the household of faith, but nevertheless, the Christian is called to remain distanced and uncompromised from the powers and principalities of this age, not judging or involving themself the affairs of men. Gary's approach is also different from joshuabgood's in that it places more of an emphasis on the spiritual than the temporal.

I believe HK and I have a strong dualism as well that separates citizens of Christ's Kingdom from the means and methods of earthly governments, although it is a bit fuzzier-edged, and more pragmatic. It recognizes the centrality of Christ and His Peaceable Kingdom, which we believe will eventually come in fullness "on earth as in heaven", but it also acknowledges that, until that time, the work of God in a fallen world can also occur "outside the perfection of Christ," including through the police function of just governance (Rom 13). I have argued that while our citizenship remains resolutely in Christ's Kingdom, at times we are justified in prophetically voicing our concern when governments act abusively and unjustly, outside of their God-ordained role (something joshuabgood and Gary would not do - for differing reasons).

I hear brother Ox in support of this more pragmatic approach, but I haven't figured out where his edges are yet - although I'm learning more with each post.

I like this summary. My own position actually shares some elements of joshuabgood's, even though it often seems as if he and I are in vociferous opposition . There is one true King, King Jesus, and one consequence of this is that there can be no such thing as "secular" politics. The belief that there is such a "cordoned-off" area stems from a false anthropology - namely liberalism (and by this I don't mean "left-wing politics"). I would call myself a postliberal, and part of what I mean by this (there are many "versions" of postliberalism) is summed up well by New Polity (emphasis mine):

The world of family, marriage, and friendship is the real world, the world in which we actually move, and together either ascend toward our Creator or descend toward our tempter. Mankind actually lives in a world defined by our love of God and our love of neighbor, a single love that Christianity identifies as charity. Where that love fails or is yet imperfect we rely upon external order provided by law or contracts. Where that love thrives, we approach society’s telos, the end of the external apparatus of state, law, and coercion and the fulfillment of our natures in union with God. This is the difference that postliberalism brings: rather than finding a place for Christian love in politics, postliberalism realizes that all politics is fulfilled in Christian love.

and also

Liberal society will not be converted by Christian promises of more freedom, more prosperity, more security, more “happiness” – in short, by more liberalism. Liberal society will be converted by the allure of the Gospel that places all these goods within a more fundamental good, which is ultimately the love of God and neighbor.

There’s much that I find attractive about postliberalism (and New Polity as well). Incidentally, when I first read Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed a few years ago my first thought to his open ended question at the end of his book “What comes next?” was: “He ought to look to Anabaptist communities for an alternative to liberalism”. Maybe I made to much of our own nonconformity to the Liberal order but I still think our Third Way offers a viable way forward in this ‘post everything’ moment we find ourselves in.

[Josh]

It is worth noting that many Anabaptists are moving in a general direction towards liberalism (in the manner the term is used above).

For example, many Anabaptists are moving in a direction of feeling that the rights and beliefs of the individual should be more and more important. It is interesting that most Anabaptists seem unaware they are simply moving in the direction the rest of society moved a century ago.

[joey_the_ox]

It is worth noting that many Anabaptists are moving in a general direction towards liberalism (in the manner the term is used above).

For example, many Anabaptists are moving in a direction of feeling that the rights and beliefs of the individual should be more and more important. It is interesting that most Anabaptists seem unaware they are simply moving in the direction the rest of society moved a century ago.

I have an honest question here (not trying to be polemical, just want to know what contributors here think). Wasn't one of the contentions of Bender's Anabaptist Vision that Anabaptism essentially was the root from which liberalism sprouted?

[joey_the_ox]

I started a new thread on the above topic (under Anabaptist Theology and Practice).

[Josh]

It is worth noting that many Anabaptists are moving in a general direction towards liberalism (in the manner the term is used above).

For example, many Anabaptists are moving in a direction of feeling that the rights and beliefs of the individual should be more and more important. It is interesting that most Anabaptists seem unaware they are simply moving in the direction the rest of society moved a century ago.

I have an honest question here (not trying to be polemical, just want to know what contributors here think). Wasn't one of the contentions of Bender's Anabaptist Vision that Anabaptism essentially was the root from which liberalism sprouted?

Bender says this, but I don't really agree with it. It seems like giving Anabaptism an awful lot of credit. I would argue liberalism sprouted from the Enlightenment (particularly Erasmus); Anabaptism grew as well in this era which is why it manifested as partly an intellectual movement as opposed to a purely apocalyptic or mystical movement like the Waldensians did.

Modern-day progressive Anabaptists tend to really like liberalism and secularism, but I think they also struggle with feeling irrelevant. So they have a strong urge to take credit for progressivism.

[Dan Z]

My own position actually shares some elements of joshuabgood's, even though it often seems as if he and I are in vociferous opposition .

Ditto. I find myself resonating with much of what joshuabgood says. Like I said, "Depending on the day..."

Discussions like this can sometimes feel divisive and tend to focus on points of differentiation (who wants to sit around agreeing anyway ), and have a tough time capturing nuance...but I really enjoy how they can also test the edges of our thinking. I suspect we all, to one degree or another, come by our worldviews both intuitively and intellectually. It's good to see where the limits of intuition lie - and test how they hold up.

[RZehr]

"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.

Is a shepherd's rod used to beat the sheep?

What do you think a clear reading of this scripture is? Do you think this verse in Proverbs is not talking about corporal punishment, but some "kinder, gentler" use of "the rod"?

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. Proverbs 19:18