LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Josh]

Who is this “we” you speak of?

[GaryK]

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.

That is where I have been focusing my time and energy in these conversations and in these conversations I have not seen anyone say or do anything close to the "but if" statements you made. Therefore, I don't see what the point was in including them in a response to what I wrote. The beginning of each of those statements are good points that relate directly to my quote.

[Bootstrap]

That is where I have been focusing my time and energy in these conversations and in these conversations I have not seen anyone say or do anything close to the "but if" statements you made. Therefore, I don't see what the point was in including them in a response to what I wrote. The beginning of each of those statements are good points that relate directly to my quote.

OK. I'm more than happy to focus on the things I said in the beginning of each sentence. And to seek other ways to live out what is good and right and Christlike.

[Josh]

I don't think anyone has "bad-mouthed the poor", although certainly it is worth painting fornication and promiscuity in a negative light. But rich people do those things and become single parents by choice too.

I don't think anyone has lobbied to exclude refugees. I might hold an opinion that flooding a place with refugees fundamentally changes the character of the place, and often not for the better. Is that "lobbying"?

As far as justifying those who invade their neighbours, when faced with my neighbour invading my property with a rented backhoe, we sought to find peace including trying to understand his point of view (where he felt his invasion was justified). So in a sense, I did justify those who invade their neighbours - in this case I was the target of the invasion.

[Dan Z]

This has been a great discussion so far (even if somewhat off-topic), with some very significant posts and thoughtful contributors. I'm learning as we go! I'm especially impressed with how the core discussion has managed to rise above the political paradigms, what-aboutism, and ad hominem dismissals that are all too common on this forum. It is threads like this that make me want to hang around.

What I have found interesting about the discussion thus far are the nuances of dualism represented. I think most of us Anabaptists agree on a dualistic worldview - the Kingdom of God vs the Kingdoms of this world. I think this comes from the Christocentric hermeneutic that has historically grounded Anabaptism.

If I may oversimplify - I think there have been three main dualistic approaches articulated here:

• 1) Seperatistic (quiet) Dualism (Gary K): In a fallen world, scripture tells us that God ordains and uses governments to keep order, and as He wills, to advance His larger purposes among men. The New Testament does not give followers of Jesus license to meddle in the affairs of the World, but rather, we are to submit to the governing authorities to the degree that we can do so in good conscience. Through word and deed we bear witness to the non-resistant and love-grounded way of Christ, inviting individuals to follow Him with us - but we do not attempt to impose Christian morality on the Kingdoms of this world. Caesar will do what caesar will do - and God will deal with Caesar justly as He sees fit. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this means we grieve the effects of war and violence and reach out in love to those affected by man's warring ways, but we do not judge the warring parties, take sides, or superimpose Kingdom expectations onto the actions of earthly governments.
  
  2) Prophetic (pragmatic) Dualism (HondurasKeiser): Historic Anabaptism has held in tension the ideas that Christ is Lord and demands our total allegiance, and at the same time that God ordains governments to punish evil and keep order in a fallen world. God places expectations on both His children and on secular governments. Followers of Christ are not called to administration of the world's power structures, but when the governments of this world act in ways that are outside of their God-ordained function, followers of Christ may be called upon to decry those evils. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Anabaptist Christians, as peacemakers, are justified in not only responding to needs, but prophetically condemning the aggression and warmongering that is contributing to the death and suffering brought about by actions that are outside of the ordained mandate of government.
  
  3) Kingdoms in Conflict (radical) Dualism (joshuabgood): The Kingdoms of this world, no matter how benevolent or despotic they may seem at any given point in history, must ultimately be recognized as in conflict with the coming reign of King Jesus. Their methods of power are, at the core, incompatible with the way of Christ. In the end, they are self-serving and wed to their own power. Followers of Jesus are called to bear witness to the non-coercive upside-down Kingdom of the suffering servant, and part of this witness is to stand with the opressed, including speaking the truth of Christ's Kingdom to powers and principalities, exposing their fallenness. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this means not only ministering to "the least of these," but clearly and prophetically decrying the inevitable anti-christ horrors of war and oppression, pointing not to political solutions, but to Christ's Kingdom of transcendent love for the final answers.

Happy for edits or corrections where my summaries fall short...

[temporal1]

Any discussion with GaryK or HondurasKeiser is a blessing, no matter topic.
Both on one topic is a more rare treat.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

Gary I really respect you and often find I agree with much of what you write - this though, what you write above, seems functionally unrealistic. The Church is not filled with Know-Nothings or ostriches, we do not float about blissfully unaware of the manifold tragedies that abound in our world and none of us are without opinions about those tragedies. When Russia invaded Ukraine did you not have a visceral reaction against it? As nett and Josh bombarded us with anti-Ukraine propaganda, did you not think to yourself, perhaps the leaders of Ukraine are not wholly innocent is this tragedy? I did. My friends and co-workers know I am a Mennonite and most know that means I am nonresistant and many know I don't vote. Nevertheless, when the topic of Ukraine arises in conversation I do my level-best to decry the injustices I see on both sides and to advocate for the way for Jesus. That is what I mean. I do not think marches and protests are of very much use generally speaking, though I have attended some in my day - and I think even less of "Church Statements". Nevertheless, to simply accept the reality of the world for what it is, remain quiet in the land and pretend as though we Christians, called to Christ's peace, have no opinion about the horrors that exist in the world, is at once self-deceivingly naïve and also a strange silo-ing off of the Gospel in a way that tells the world: "Jesus has nothing to say to you O' Ukrainian, about the injustice being visited upon you in the present. We do invite you though to come join our quiet, peaceable Kingdom where you can learn to accept the injustices for what they are." Perhaps you read that as a caricature of your position, if so please correct me.

I think that when political systems do Good, instantiate Justice and combat evil - we can say so. Isn't that a kind of thing Paul was doing in Romans 13? I also think that when political systems commit evil, perpetrate injustice and make life difficult for the Church - we can also say so. Didn't Paul do something like that before Caesar, didn't Jesus sort of do that before Pilate? Again, I don't think we need to be out in the streets marching, waving banners and signing Church Statements that no one will read - but in our conversations with outsiders, in the way we live our lives and in our communal action in the world, we can make it clear that we think the state is either doing Good or doing Evil. Shouldn't we want the state, insofar as it's able, to instantiate Justice? Shouldn't we prefer that our society not devolve into anarchy, a state-of-nature or some totalitarian, dystopian hell-scape? The systems themselves can never be brought into the way of Jesus, only individuals - the systems though are judged by a standard of Justice that finds its source in God - I see nothing wrong with encouraging the systems of this world to approximate (though they'll never reach) that divine standard.

[RZehr]

This has been a great discussion so far (even if somewhat off-topic), with some very significant posts and thoughtful contributors. I'm learning as we go! I'm especially impressed with how the core discussion has managed to rise above the political paradigms, what-aboutism, and ad hominem dismissals that are all too common on this forum. It is threads like this that make me want to hang around.

What I have found interesting about the discussion is thus far the nuances of dualism represented. I think most of us Anabaptists agree on a dualistic worldview - the Kingdom of God vs the Kingdoms of this world. I think this comes from the Christocentric hermeneutic that has historically grounded Anabaptism.

If I may oversimplify - I think there have been three main dualistic approaches articulated here:

• 1) Seperatistic (quiet) Dualism (Gary K): In a fallen world, scripture tells us that God ordains and uses governments to keep order, and as He wills, to advance His larger purposes among men. The New Testament does not give followers of Jesus license to meddle in the affairs of the World, but rather, we are to submit to the governing authorities to the degree that we can do so in good conscience. Through word and deed we bear witness to the non-resistant and love-grounded way of Christ, inviting individuals to follow Him with us - but we do not attempt to impose Christian morality on the Kingdoms of this world. Caesar will do what caesar will do - and God will deal with Caesar justly as He sees fit. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this means we grieve the effects of war and violence and reach out in love to those affected by man's warring ways, but we do not judge the warring parties, take sides, or superimpose Kingdom expectations onto the actions of earthly governments.
  
  2) Prophetic (pragmatic) Dualism (HondurasKeiser): Historic Anabaptism has held in tension the ideas that Christ is Lord and demands our total allegiance, and at the same time that God ordains governments to punish evil and keep order in a fallen world. God places expectations on both His children and on secular governments. Followers of Christ are not called to administration of the world's power structures, but when the governments of this world act in ways that are outside of their God-ordained function, followers of Christ may be called upon to decry those evils. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Anabaptist Christians, as peacemakers, are justified in not only responding to needs, but prophetically condemning the aggression and warmongering that is contributing to the death and suffering brought about by actions that are outside of the ordained mandate of government.
  
  3) Kingdoms in Conflict (radical) Dualism (joshuabgood): The Kingdoms of this world, no matter how benevolent or despotic they may seem at any given point in history, must ultimately be recognized as in conflict with the coming reign of King Jesus. Their methods of power are, at the core, incompatible with the way of Christ. In the end, they are self-serving and wed to their own power. Followers of Jesus are called to bear witness to the non-coercive upside-down Kingdom of the suffering servant, and part of this witness is to stand with the opressed, including speaking the truth of Christ's Kingdom to powers and principalities, exposing their fallenness. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this means not only ministering to "the least of these," but clearly and prophetically decrying the inevitable anti-christ horrors of war and oppression, pointing not to political solutions, but to Christ's Kingdom of transcendent love for the final answers.

Happy for edits or corrections where my summaries fall short...

While I find myself most comfortable between the first and third, the second is least comfortable to me.

[HondurasKeiser]

Institution of rulers and subjection or submission to rulers, is not the same as being 'sanctioned' or 'blest' and does not ipso facto lead to the concept of 'divine right' nor, I stress, should one assume a kind latent divine right theory in Romans 13.

This is my point. The coercion of the Kingdoms of this world isn't in fact "godly" exercise of power because it isn't Christian, which is to say, like Christ. I don't see a distinction frankly between "blest" and "divine right."

Well 'blest' and 'divine right' and 'sanctioned' are your words, not mine, or anyone else's here, or the text's - which is why I was pointing them out as odd choices. 'Ordained' or 'instituted' are words that I use because that is what I read in the texts.

In fact, "divine right" the way some appear to be reading the text is in fact the faithful logical conclusion. Divine right merely means that the rightful authority a govt holds it holds because God gave it to them directly. It is their divine, that is Godly, right or duty to discharge such authority.

Not to quibble, but 'divine right' is a theory that functions as the basis for rule for specific ruling monarchs, not for the institution of government more broadly. That I think, is an important distinction. More importantly, Divine Right theory is not the only logical conclusion one might draw from a casual reading of Romans 13. I doubt many if any of our Anabaptist forbears would have considered themselves proponents of the Divine Right of Kings.

The problem obviously is though it doesn't work empirically. (See Lancaster circa 1776 or Harrisonburg circa 1865). In fact, on close introspection, one has trouble distinguishing in any coherent way between "godly govt ministers" and mere "mafia moguls." The crisis in Ukraine is a real example of this is so many different ways. Most agree Putin is clearly embracing anti-Christ (that is thug like or mafia like) behavior, and those who are willing to look a little deeper, see the same behaviors in the Ukraine, most recently captured bound Russian prisoners having their kneecaps blown off and shot through by Ukrainian government officers. With Paul it obviously doesn't make sense with a simple literal reading either. Nero didn't do good to Paul and wasn't a terror to the evil workers but to the good folks. It seems clear to me this passage needs interpretation in the light of Jesus, his life and witness.

I think you're allowing your elision of the nuances of history and indeed individuals, to do a lot of work for your position. To put it bluntly, it strikes me as willing blindness to equate all rulers, everywhere, from all time-periods, with "mafia moguls". Really? Was King David a mafia mogul? King Wenceslas? Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover or Queen Elizabeth or Charles V of Spain or John Quincy Adams? None, were or are perfect. All probably committed injustices that they will have to answer for; but it's a special kind of Bulverism that assumes they're equally evil and indistinguishable in their detestability because they rule(d) a state at some point.

Your example of Ukraine/Russia I think highlights where perhaps you misunderstand my position. I do not think that governments, by dint of the fact that they've been instituted by God for specific purposes and whence they derive their authority, can do as they will or receive divine sanction for all that they do. Many (most? all?) governments abuse their divinely instituted/loaned authority and perpetrate all manner of injustices for all manner of reasons as your Ukraine/Russia example so aptly shows. Rulers and officials will have to answer for those injustices some day precisely for the fact that they neglected their God-ordained duties and in fact did the opposite.

We happy, state-eschewing Mennonites have managed to hold 2 ideas in our heads at once for nigh on 500 years, namely that Christ is Lord and demands our total allegiance and that Paul means what he writes in the plain English and that both are normative for the life of the Christian and the Church

I am sure you have read it, but my suggestion is if you haven't, read "Twas Seeding Time" by Ruth or "Mennonites Amish and the Civil War" by Nolt. The short angle is that the approach you outlined wasn't very coherent and actually created intense fractures in the Anabaptist churches...as they struggled with recognizing the USA and the CSA. In fact, who is/was the "God ordained" government ruling by divine right/sanction/blessing whatever you want to call it? Further, the Russians ruled the Ukraine for literally hundreds of years. Who is the rightful government even? Was Lenin a rightful ruler? Was Czar Nicholas? Was Oliver Cromwell?

I have read "Twas Seeding Time". My take away from it was that, with a few notable exceptions the Mennonites of Salford, Skippack and Franconia managed to remain fairly united in their refusal to support in any material or spiritual way, what they saw as an unrighteous rebellion against God's minister in England. When the rebellion though became a fait compli, they accepted their fate as citizens of an independent Pennsylvania.

Where does the right to rule come from? God? The People? a Will to Power?

Another way is to realize that yes we should submit to govt, but then again, Jesus taught us to submit to the thief who takes our coat. Or the bully who hits us. I think one can reasonably interpret Paul's main point being that we shouldn't rebel against govt and that generally govt will only take on those that are fighting with society. However, I don't think it means "divine right."

I never said Romans 13 confers a 'divine right'. That was your term that I took issue with.

You have less recourse against a novel hermeneutical twist that comes along after yours that you deem anathema e.g. an argument from silence about the blessedness of loving and monogamous same-sex marriages.

My suggestion is that we take one topic at a time and set aside what feels like "slippery slope" arguments.

Perhaps, But as Joey has intimated. How is your hermeneutic functionally different from DBH's. You don't believe in the God-ordainedness of government, he doesn't believe in Hell....but you both got there using the same basic hermeneutic. I assume you believe in Hell. How do you argue against DBH in defense of the idea of Hell?

Your Christian Anarchism or King Jesusism renders you unable to speak truth, in any sort of coherent way, to power because in the end so what?

To be clear I am not an anarchist. I am a proponent of the Kingdom of God, a real, present, and political reality on earth. With a government and King. We wage war but not with violence and coercion. It doesn't follow that this prohibits me from adjuring any who will listen, including the kingdoms of this world, that the way of Jesus is better, more effective, and in fact his Kingdom is coming. That is what I mean by speaking truth to power.

I don't think you're an anarchist...I think you're a Christian Anarchist. Which isn't the worst thing in the world and as I said before, puts you in pretty good company.

[temporal1]

.. Most agree Putin is clearly embracing anti-Christ (that is thug like or mafia like) behavior, and those who are willing to look a little deeper, see the same behaviors in the Ukraine, most recently captured bound Russian prisoners having their kneecaps blown off and shot through by Ukrainian government officers. ..

Soloist or others will know, all violent war is heinous, but atrocities like these possibly reflect Ukraine’s poorly trained military?