LGBT and Christian Persecution

[joshuabgood]

Crack open your Bible and you’ll find out.

A starting point might be the Ten Commandments.

Well "Christian" means like Christ. So I would expect anything with the Christian label to in fact look like the message and witness of Jesus. Which means suffering service, giving the cloak also, laying down one's life, etc.

Judeo - on the other hand means something else...

It is cognitive dissonance. Ask a Jewish Rabbi to explain it to you if you don't believe me.

Why does the West, broadly speaking, believe strongly in individual rights? I know, I know "White Supremacy"...but other than that?

Well...yes it bears mentioning that individual rights, in the western tradition apply to wealthy landed "white" men...and a black man had no rights that white man was bound to respect I believe a Chief Justice wrote. It has been a bit of trickle down since then. And simultaneously certain groups have lost/gained "rights" along the way. (Another problem is the philosophy of "individual rights" breaks down very quickly and can easily be shown to be internally inconsistent.)

That aside, the simple answer to your question is John Locke, and "natural rights" emanating from the Enlightement and Humanism. Certainly one would be hard pressed to derive a robust "rights" methodology of ethics, and insistence thereof, from the example of the suffering servant.

So it can hardly be called Christian in any sense, where Christian, means like Christ.

[Ken]

Well "Christian" means like Christ. So I would expect anything with the Christian label to in fact look like the message and witness of Jesus. Which means suffering service, giving the cloak also, laying down one's life, etc.

Judeo - on the other hand means something else...

It is cognitive dissonance. Ask a Jewish Rabbi to explain it to you if you don't believe me.

Why does the West, broadly speaking, believe strongly in individual rights? I know, I know "White Supremacy"...but other than that?

Well...yes it bears mentioning that individual rights, in the western tradition apply to wealthy landed "white" men...and a black man had no rights that white man was bound to respect I believe a Chief Justice wrote. It has been a bit of trickle down since then. And simultaneously certain groups have lost/gained "rights" along the way. (Another problem is the philosophy of "individual rights" breaks down very quickly and can easily be shown to be internally inconsistent.)

That aside, the simple answer to your question is John Locke, and "natural rights" emanating from the Enlightement and Humanism. Certainly one would be hard pressed to derive a robust "rights" methodology of ethics, and insistence thereof, from the example of the suffering servant.

So it can hardly be called Christian in any sense, where Christian, means like Christ.

Well yes, my recollection of college humanities is fading. But my sense is that the enlightenment philosophers like Locke also borrowed from ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato in describing concepts like personal liberty and responsibility. But not at all from ancient Hebrew philosophy as reflected in the Old Testament or Christianity as reflected in the New Testament.

[Bootstrap]

Again, this feels like a fairly complicated approach to a simple moral question. Gay marriage is sinful. Massive bloodshed is horrible. Why is that hard?

I don't really understand the work the word "political" is doing in these sentences or how that works out in your moral theology or your understanding of two kingdom theology. That's precisely why I asked these questions:

Morality is god-centered. Is there an exception for things that are political? If a politician rapes a woman, is it morally exempt? If a politician sends an army to rape and kill large numbers of people, is it morally exempt? Are genocides morally neutral if conducted by governments, since they are therefore political? Is it wrong to correct a Christian who applauds such a "morally exempt genocide"?

How would you answer these questions? That will help me understand what "political" means in your framework.

I view what other kingdoms do as political and leave it at that. I don't try to insert moral arguments for why one side is good and the other side is bad. I think it's impossible to be consistent when trying to do so.

For example - some of the Muslim countries in your list seem to be more closely aligned with biblical moral values than many western countries. If one is going to use moral arguments as the basis to support or oppose political systems, then it would follow that the closer a system is to biblical moral values, the more support that system receives. I don't see that happening with pro-western supporters.

I really don't believe God has favorite political systems. If He did, I suppose He would choose ones that have the most overall morality.

First off, thanks for this answer, which was much clearer for me.

Here's where I think we differ - and I could be wrong. I am focused on behavior. Is invading a country and inflicting massive bloodshed good or bad? I think it is equally bad no matter who is doing it. And I think it is clearly bad. You seem to be focused on sides, worrying that criticizing either side for doing wrong would be "taking sides".

I can understand the concern about taking sides because there is a daily flood of allegations along clearly partisan lines, and most are not based on anything like real evidence. And we generally don't have the inside story just because we are in the Kingdom of God. But if we are going to discuss something like the War in Ukraine at all, I don't think we should discuss it as though bloodshed and destruction are morally neutral. If we cannot see what is plainly wrong, I think that numbs us morally.

I don't know that God has "favorite political systems", but I do think the Bible speaks out against injustice and oppression and tells us to care for refugees and those who are in need. I think God does care about things like wars, concentration camps, Gulags, torture, rape, etc. And I think that means the Kingdom of God sometimes does need to speak to what That Other Kingdom is doing. Not because we love one political side more than the other or one political figure more than another, but because God cares about people who are being harmed.

[GaryK]

Again, this feels like a fairly complicated approach to a simple moral question. Gay marriage is sinful. Massive bloodshed is horrible. Why is that hard?

I don't really understand the work the word "political" is doing in these sentences or how that works out in your moral theology or your understanding of two kingdom theology. That's precisely why I asked these questions:



How would you answer these questions? That will help me understand what "political" means in your framework.

I view what other kingdoms do as political and leave it at that. I don't try to insert moral arguments for why one side is good and the other side is bad. I think it's impossible to be consistent when trying to do so.

For example - some of the Muslim countries in your list seem to be more closely aligned with biblical moral values than many western countries. If one is going to use moral arguments as the basis to support or oppose political systems, then it would follow that the closer a system is to biblical moral values, the more support that system receives. I don't see that happening with pro-western supporters.

I really don't believe God has favorite political systems. If He did, I suppose He would choose ones that have the most overall morality.

First off, thanks for this answer, which was much clearer for me.

Here's where I think we differ - and I could be wrong. I am focused on behavior. Is invading a country and inflicting massive bloodshed good or bad? I think it is equally bad no matter who is doing it. And I think it is clearly bad. You seem to be focused on sides, worrying that criticizing either side for doing wrong would be "taking sides".

I can understand the concern about taking sides because there is a daily flood of allegations along clearly partisan lines, and most are not based on anything like real evidence. And we generally don't have the inside story just because we are in the Kingdom of God. But if we are going to discuss something like the War in Ukraine at all, I don't think we should discuss it as though bloodshed and destruction are morally neutral. If we cannot see what is plainly wrong, I think that numbs us morally.

I don't know that God has "favorite political systems", but I do think the Bible speaks out against injustice and oppression and tells us to care for refugees and those who are in need. I think God does care about things like wars, concentration camps, Gulags, torture, rape, etc. And I think that means the Kingdom of God sometimes does need to speak to what That Other Kingdom is doing. Not because we love one political side more than the other or one political figure more than another, but because God cares about people who are being harmed.

Whose behavior are you focused on and what are you going to do about it?

[GaryK]

I don't know that God has "favorite political systems", but I do think the Bible speaks out against injustice and oppression and tells us to care for refugees and those who are in need. I think God does care about things like wars, concentration camps, Gulags, torture, rape, etc. And I think that means the Kingdom of God sometimes does need to speak to what That Other Kingdom is doing. Not because we love one political side more than the other or one political figure more than another, but because God cares about people who are being harmed.

You seem to be focusing a lot of attention on what Russia is doing that is morally wrong, which is clearly taking a side. You seem convinced that God is on the side of Ukraine in this war and therefore His children need to speak out against it, but here's a question - what is the morally right thing for Ukraine to do in this war?

If the KOG needs to speak to what That Other Kingdom (Russia) is doing wrong it also needs to speak to what That Other Kingdom (Ukraine) needs to do right in this case. Is Ukraine loving its enemy? Is it returning good for evil? Is it following the teachings of Jesus? Or does morality address only what is wrong in worldly political systems?

These are the types of questions I think of when I say it's next to impossible to try and project morality and NT KOG perspectives into anything involving worldly political systems. Political systems will do what political systems do and always have done. Our calling as citizens in the Kingdom of Jesus is to call individuals within those political systems to the way of Jesus, not try to change the systems into the way of Jesus, because that's impossible.

[barnhart]

Christianity is very much in opposition to personal liberty or freedom. It is all about obligations to God and your community and family.

Certainly. Maybe our disagreement is of focus not substance. Would it be fair to say that Feminism, Randian Individualism, Marxism and Capitalism, ect... conflict deeply with the ethics of Jesus, but are only possible in societies with a certain saturation level of Christian thought, pagan shadows of Jesus' kingdom.

[barnhart]

When I first learned Two Kingdom theology in a Mennonite setting, we were told about the dangers of "sacralism":

Sacralism is the confluence of church and state wherein one is called upon to change the other. It also denotes a perspective that views church and state as tied together instead of separate entities so that people within a geographical and political region are considered members of the dominant ecclesiastical institution.

We were told the Middle Ages was an example of this, and so was Constantine, and given examples of Christians who suffered under "Christian" governments. The Martyr's Mirror is full of this.

But now it feels like some Mennonites are longing for a big bully who will beat up our moral enemies and save us from persecution. I don't think that ends well. Not for the purity of our faith, not for our safety from persecution, not for our focus on Jesus Christ and walking as he walked and taught.

Yes. I think this is a clear and present danger. Those who are serious about maintaining an Anabaptist worldview should take note. The power of God is displayed when the world is against the church, not for it.

[Bootstrap]

I don't know that God has "favorite political systems", but I do think the Bible speaks out against injustice and oppression and tells us to care for refugees and those who are in need. I think God does care about things like wars, concentration camps, Gulags, torture, rape, etc. And I think that means the Kingdom of God sometimes does need to speak to what That Other Kingdom is doing. Not because we love one political side more than the other or one political figure more than another, but because God cares about people who are being harmed.

You seem to be focusing a lot of attention on what Russia is doing that is morally wrong, which is clearly taking a side.

How can we speak against any kind of morality or injustice without speaking about specific things that specific people or countries are doing? If you see that as "taking sides", where does the Bible condemn those who side against what is wrong?

And aren't we also taking sides if we say it's no big deal for Russia to invade Ukraine, that Russia should not be criticized, etc?

You seem convinced that God is on the side of Ukraine in this war and therefore His children need to speak out against it, but here's a question - what is the morally right thing for Ukraine to do in this war?

Those are words I would not use. I never say God is on the side of a particular country in a war. But I do speak plainly about some kinds of blatant wrongdoing. Invading a country that is not threatening your country and inflicting massive bloodshed, especially in civilian areas ... that seems like a clear case to me.

I don't know what to tell the government of Ukraine to do, or the governments of Europe. I can't tell people how to handle themselves in war. I can only pray for victims and help refugees, speak out against injustice, etc. Even though I wouldn't know what to tell the Jews to do under HItler, I think Hitler was doing terrible things. Even though I wouldn't know what to tell the victims of Mao's cultural revolution or Stalin's Holodomor, I think Mao and Stalin were doing terrible things. Even though I have no idea what to tell the victims of the modern Syrian regime, I think terrible things have been done to them. Is that taking sides? Is there something wrong with that? Do I need to have an answer for the victims or know what they should do to speak out against this kind of wrongdoing?

If the KOG needs to speak to what That Other Kingdom (Russia) is doing wrong it also needs to speak to what That Other Kingdom (Ukraine) needs to do right in this case. Is Ukraine loving its enemy? Is it returning good for evil? Is it following the teachings of Jesus? Or does morality address only what is wrong in worldly political systems?

If governments have Romans 13 authority at all, I would think defending their citizens against attack would be part of that authority. If Caesar "bears the sword", then Caesar is doing something that you and I cannot as members of the Kingdom of God. And yet, Romans 13 describes Caesar as "God's servant" in bearing the sword.

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

But surely Caesar is also accountable to God. Surely the way that Caesar wields the sword matters. And how can we possibly speak out against war if we cannot speak out against military invasions and bombing cities?

These are the types of questions I think of when I say it's next to impossible to try and project morality and NT KOG perspectives into anything involving worldly political systems. Political systems will do what political systems do and always have done. Our calling as citizens in the Kingdom of Jesus is to call individuals within those political systems to the way of Jesus, not try to change the systems into the way of Jesus, because that's impossible.

I agree with that last sentence - the most important task for the Kingdom of God is to be the Kingdom of God. But to me, morality, justice, love, and service are very important parts of being the Kingdom of God. Hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Grieving and mourning. Caring for the victims.

If we are not going to "project morality and NT KOG perspectives" into these questions, why are we discussing them at all?

[Sudsy]

Personally my view is that our mission is not one of speaking out about sin in this world as it is not a matter of sinners correcting their sinful ways. Our mission is to point people to Jesus in whatever manifestations of sin are taking place as without Him changing their hearts, they really don't care what our opinions are. With the Gospel message that each individual needs to be born again, our lives should represent what a changed heart does to a person.

We Christians waste a lot of time pointing out how sinners sin instead of sharing the Gospel that has the 'power of God unto salvation' for everyone who believes that message. Salvation isn't about getting the kingdoms of this world to live a more Christ like life. Rather it is about individual people becoming citizens and ambassadors of the KOG in whatever earthly kingdom they live in.

It is concerning when I hear so little from Anabaptists and others about the need to be born again. My guess is because there are few radical born again experiences happening in their acquaintances. It was Jesus who said we must be born again. We can talk all we want about the sins of this world and never point anyone to the real sin solution. To me, this is a serious problem when we expect sinners to act less sinful without first being born again.

[Dan Z]

Some of what bootstrap says here resonates with me.

Where do empathy and moral judgment play in here? As a Christian, there must be a way of calling out aggression and warmongering (like the invasion of a neighboring country and the wanton destruction of innocent lives and property) without being drawn into overcoming evil with evil. Jesus does that when he called out those who oppress and exploit...he did so without leading a proletariate revolution (something I believe he would have been socially pressured to do). Instead, he responded to the evil he faced by calling people to face down wrong through the radically disruptive path of love and non-resistance. Aloofness to avoid entanglement seems like the sin of the Priest and the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan.

A person hoping to stop a fight by calling out a mugger's brutality doesn't feel like the same situation as "picking sides" in a street fight of co-belligerents.

At the same time, cheering on as the West pours weaponry into Ukraine would be like handing the mugging victim a gun to "settle the score."

The Christian response in all of this is the response of the Samaritan - to practice empathy, bind wounds, and minister hope and healing to the oppressed. Blessed are the peacemakers!