LGBT and Christian Persecution

[GaryK]

But I do think the NT Church has a prophetic role.

When we say we will not kill, that has a prophetic component. But if we justify those who invade their neighbors, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we say we will care for refugees, that has a prophetic component. But if we then lobby to exclude refugees and speak very negatively about them, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we adopt unwanted babies, that has a prophetic component. But if we constantly bad-mouth the poor, that is inconsistent with our calling.

Have you seen anywhere that I have justified what Russia is doing or spoken against taking care of refugees or bad-mouthed the poor?

No, I was responding directly to your quote above. I do think that Christians should be able to speak truth - often by our caring. And I think Christians have a responsibility to be salt and light, to be something better.

I was just trying to figure out why those parts were included in your response when I mentioned nothing about them.

[Bootstrap]

No, I was responding directly to your quote above. I do think that Christians should be able to speak truth - often by our caring. And I think Christians have a responsibility to be salt and light, to be something better.

I was just trying to figure out why those parts were included in your response when I mentioned nothing about them.

As I said, I was responding directly to your quote.

Here's the quote I was responding to:

What does it look like for the Church to call political systems to the way of Jesus? The Church's role is to call all sinful individuals to the way of Jesus, but I see no indication that Jesus or the NT KOG tries to do this to political systems.

If we're going to be salt and light ... that means being visible. And I think that means visible to the society we live in. That's not the same thing as "political systems". It's not the same thing as "individuals" either. Most people don't live as individuals, they live deeply embedded in the society they live in.

I live in a neighborhood, I have coworkers, I have friends, I have an extended family, I have social media acquaintances ... they aren't just individuals, they are embedded in various communities where people discuss these kinds of questions. And in my church, we also discern about what our role is in our locale, how we can serve, what God is calling us to.

I imagine that's true for you, too.

People's lives and identity and emotions are deeply embedded in their relationships and their communities. And that's often where we bear witness.

[Sudsy]

Here is a perspective from the brother of the Kiev mayor that get's to the heart of my concern about professing two-kingdom adherents taking, what I consider to be, the first step into the political arena of this war by publicly denouncing one particular side, which, in my view, translates into support for the other side. If you support Ukraine in this war, do you support the united states war machine and other western nations sending military aid to Ukraine? If not, the brother of the Kiev mayor states his view of taking such a stand.



https://www.newsmax.com/us/newsmaxtv-kl ... d/1063248/

Now, I will admit that he could state the same thing about two-kingdom adherents who do not enter the political arena of this war by refusing to either denounce or support either side, but I believe it would be much easier to defend a two-kingdom stance by refusing to publicly take a side than it would be to publicly state which side one is against and then not support the use of military aid to Ukraine.

Alright, turn it around. If we as a Church were publicly opposed to teh U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, does that mean we necessarily supported the Taliban and their manifold horrors? Of course not, because holding one independent thought e.g. 'a country invading another country is almost always evil and unjust', does not preclude nuanced and wise thoughts in the opposite direction e.g. the Ukraine is not wholly innocent or the Taliban is and was a manifest scourge on Afghani society. Isn't that, in some small part, the role of the Church? To point out the evil and injustices on all sides and call all sides to the Kingdom? Remaining mute about any side of the conflict seems like a failure of our call to bring the Good News to bear on the material circumstances of all people.

This assumes the Church should be opposed to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. I'm asking the question - is it the Church's role to support or oppose what political systems do.

Jesus seemed to accept the reality that worldly systems will fight to accomplish their goals and so far I haven't seen any indication that He either opposed or supported what the Roman system was doing in the then known world. The reality is that He suffered at the hands of the Romans and said "Father forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing". He had the perfect opportunity to condemn a system that was doing one of the most "unjust" things possible to the most innocent person in the world, but chose rather to extend mercy and forgiveness. These words indicate to me that God has His ways of dealing with these worldly systems that Jesus' is appealing to His Father not to do.

Let's assume it's in the Church's place to condemn all war. Wouldn't the Church also have to condemn the systems that fight back even if there is clearly an aggressor nation? Do we, or do we not believe in Just War Theory as it relates to Ukraine fighting back?

What does it look like for the Church to call political systems to the way of Jesus? The Church's role is to call all sinful individuals to the way of Jesus, but I see no indication that Jesus or the NT KOG tries to do this to political systems.

I am one to agree whole heartedly with you as stated in your last sentence. Our mission is to be ambassadors of the KOG that first requires becoming a citizen of the KOG by being born again. I don't need any knowledge regarding earthly kingdoms to do that nor do I need to judge their performance against KOG living and beliefs. My life as a KOG citizen should be reflective of what the KOG living within a person looks like so the sharing of the Good News and becoming a new creation is quite evident.

The Church is to call others to salvation through what Jesus did to provide His salvation. I believe those who believe they are included in the Great Commission and commit to being involved in spreading the Good News, just don't have time for judging how worldly kingdoms fall short of the KOG nor try to get them to improve their ways as they are still on their way to eternal destruction. The world needs Jesus living in them in the person of the Holy Spirit and not some improvements to how they operate that is closer to a converted life style. One can't do enough right and good things to be saved.

Jesus did not come to condemn the world but to save it from it's sins. This is accomplished through the new birth. That is the Gospel, the good news, and we are messengers of this good news. God help us all to adjust our focus and ministry on what is of eternal significance.

[temporal1]

One visible inconsistency is voting for policies while claiming disagreement, or even abhorrance.
Voting is definitely a proactive tangible worldly choice. It’s not “nothing.”

To vote for sins+crimes while claiming “i don’t know what to do” isn’t a message of Salt+Light.

i have a fantasy that many of the voting folks (and leaders, too) who have been misled would recognize it, admit error, apologize, and stop it. after all, decades have passed, it’s not as tho results of experimental policies are a mystery.

It’s not that we don’t sin. It’s that Jesus (demands) - “sin no more.” That’s the clincher. Stop.

[GaryK]

No, I was responding directly to your quote above. I do think that Christians should be able to speak truth - often by our caring. And I think Christians have a responsibility to be salt and light, to be something better.

I was just trying to figure out why those parts were included in your response when I mentioned nothing about them.

As I said, I was responding directly to your quote.

Here's the quote I was responding to:

What does it look like for the Church to call political systems to the way of Jesus? The Church's role is to call all sinful individuals to the way of Jesus, but I see no indication that Jesus or the NT KOG tries to do this to political systems.

If we're going to be salt and light ... that means being visible. And I think that means visible to the society we live in. That's not the same thing as "political systems". It's not the same thing as "individuals" either. Most people don't live as individuals, they live deeply embedded in the society they live in.

I live in a neighborhood, I have coworkers, I have friends, I have an extended family, I have social media acquaintances ... they aren't just individuals, they are embedded in various communities where people discuss these kinds of questions. And in my church, we also discern about what our role is in our locale, how we can serve, what God is calling us to.

I imagine that's true for you, too.

People's lives and identity and emotions are deeply embedded in their relationships and their communities. And that's often where we bear witness.

And here is how you originally responded to my quote. Now you've come up with something entirely different.

But I do think the NT Church has a prophetic role.

When we say we will not kill, that has a prophetic component. But if we justify those who invade their neighbors, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we say we will care for refugees, that has a prophetic component. But if we then lobby to exclude refugees and speak very negatively about them, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we adopt unwanted babies, that has a prophetic component. But if we constantly bad-mouth the poor, that is inconsistent with our calling.

Who is the "we" in the "but ifs" referring to? What did those have to do with my quote?

[Bootstrap]

What did those have to do with my quote?

I thought it was directly relevant. You may not see it that way. I'm not sure how else to explain it. There's been some really constructive conversation in this thread, maybe I'll sit back and see where others go with it.

Who is the "we" in the "but ifs" referring to?

No, please, let's not play that game. Let's focus on how two-kingdom Christians can best live out our lives with respect to these questions.

[GaryK]

What did those have to do with my quote?

I thought it was directly relevant. You may not see it that way. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Who is the "we" in the "but ifs" referring to?

No, please, let's not play that game. Let's focus on how two-kingdom Christians can best live out our lives with respect to these questions.

I agree, let's not play the game of implying something about something I wrote and then not being willing to clarify when asked about it. Who's really playing games here? Are you really not willing to clarify something you wrote?

[Bootstrap]

I agree, let's not play the game of implying something about something I wrote and then not being willing to clarify when asked about it. Who's really playing games here? Are you really not willing to clarify something you wrote?

I've clarified twice.

Can you quote something specific I wrote and ask me questions about it, perhaps using the same kinds of framing that I used when writing it? I can't say what I meant by using your words. But I can answer questions about my own words, in my own words. Or perhaps someone else can explain.

[GaryK]

I agree, let's not play the game of implying something about something I wrote and then not being willing to clarify when asked about it. Who's really playing games here? Are you really not willing to clarify something you wrote?

I've clarified twice.

Can you quote something specific I wrote and ask me questions about it, perhaps using the same kinds of framing that I used when writing it? I can't say what I meant by using your words. But I can answer questions about my own words, in my own words. Or perhaps someone else can explain.

I simply asked who the we is in the 3 statements that begin with "but if". I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Church or to something you have seen happening in these conversations about what the church's role is as it relates to calling political systems to the way of Jesus.

[Bootstrap]

I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Church or to something you have seen happening in these conversations about what the church's role is as it relates to calling political systems to the way of Jesus.

I think I have seen some of that in both places. I wasn't trying to point fingers at anyone in particular. I'm trying to be clear about what I think good looks like.

Here's the quote again:

But I do think the NT Church has a prophetic role.

When we say we will not kill, that has a prophetic component. But if we justify those who invade their neighbors, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we say we will care for refugees, that has a prophetic component. But if we then lobby to exclude refugees and speak very negatively about them, that is inconsistent with our calling.

When we adopt unwanted babies, that has a prophetic component. But if we constantly bad-mouth the poor, that is inconsistent with our calling.

I wish we spent more time and energy focusing on the "when we say" parts. The other half of each sentence is there for contrast - perhaps you have bumped into people who do those things somewhere? I have. No need to point fingers at anyone in particular.