LGBT and Christian Persecution

[GaryK]

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.

I view politics as all about sides. I don't view politics through the lens of morality and NT Kingdom values because politics does not operate from those principles. So I try to understand what is happening in situations like Ukraine from a political reality rather than a right and wrong reality, which is what the NT Kingdom is called to live by. What Ernie did in Plain News by publishing the perspectives of both sides, I thought was good. Plain News then followed those pieces up with a warning against nationalism, which I think was timely. I think looking at politics in this way, may, in fact, bring a greater awareness of the horrors that exist in the world than to try to figure out which political system in a particular war, or in general, is the most evil or good.

And so when I see what is happening in places like Ukraine, it is a stark reminder to me of the reality of a broken and sinful world and for that, my heart breaks and if Jesus' heart can break, I think His does to.

But I really don't see any indication from Jesus' time on earth that He would tell non-Christian Ukrainians "Russia is evil for doing what it is doing to your country and it is my position that you Ukrainians are on the right side of this war". Wouldn't that produce even more hatred, evil and a desire for revenge in an already broken and sinful world? I'm also doubtful He would tell them "Just so you know, Ukrainians, there are political systems throughout the world that are much better than Russia's or even your country's, such as countries in western Europe and the United States, and I encourage you to petition your governments to become more like them."

I do think what He would tell them is, "my heart breaks at the brokenness of this evil world as seen by what is happening in your country and in places like western Europe and the United States, but I died and rose again to establish a Kingdom where it is actually possible to love your enemies and to experience a peace that no political system in this world can ever give you and I invite you to join this Kingdom. But I want you to understand that joining this Kingdom may actually bring more suffering than you are already experiencing, but I promise you that in the end, all will be made right by my Father and Me".

So yes, I do see what you wrote about my position as a caricature.

[joshuabgood]

.. 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?

I don't think poor training is what is behind shooting a man with handcuffs on in the knee cap and letting him lay without providing aid. It's the natural result of violence and what it does to humanity. And the cycle will continue...when those family members of the ones injured see/hear this.

[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?

I don't think poor training is what is behind shooting a man with handcuffs on in the knee cap and letting him lay without providing aid. It's the natural result of violence and what it does to humanity. And the cycle will continue...when those family members of the ones injured see/hear this.

i appreciate this, but, from a military pov, i believe there are “standards of conduct” employed, the Geneva Convention, etc.
my understanding is, whether police or military, there are codes of honor and conduct that prevent atrocities.
they have a job to do, they want to be efficient, but not vengeful. if they can do the job without violence, that’s the goal. not negligent violence.

often, this means they may take (and protect) enemies, criminals, they personally loathe. but they are trained not to commit unnecessary violence. that’s the goal (for the west) as i understand it. self-control, self-discipline.

that’s what i’m wondering about in this example.

- - - - - -

it’s not difficult to find accounts of German Nazi leaders being captured who were DUMBFOUNDED they were not immediately tortured and killed! i read something recently of an extreme case, where the U.S. soldier (who knew+loathed, and had been tortured by this captured guy) said to him, “You think we’re going to be like you??!”

No. He was captured and protected.
He was probably shocked for the rest of his life, considering the horrible acts he ordered for many, over years.

[Soloist]

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

I don't think poor training is what is behind shooting a man with handcuffs on in the knee cap and letting him lay without providing aid. It's the natural result of violence and what it does to humanity. And the cycle will continue...when those family members of the ones injured see/hear this.

i appreciate this, but, from a military pov, i believe there are “standards of conduct” employed, the Geneva Convention, etc.
my understanding is, whether police or military, there are codes of honor and conduct that prevent atrocities.
they have a job to do, they want to be efficient, but not vengeful. if they can do the job without violence, that’s the goal. not negligent violence.

often, this means they may take (and protect) enemies, criminals, they personally loathe. but they are trained not to commit unnecessary violence. that’s the goal (for the west) as i understand it. self-control, self-discipline.

that’s what i’m wondering about in this example.

Part of war is to dehumanize your opponent... That is what allows war crimes to be committed. At the same time, its very hard to convince people to kill someone that they view as an equal member of the human race. This would be somewhat mitigated by defending your home as well.
I have seen several claims of war crimes committed by the Ukraine forces and so far I haven't seen much authenticated outside of them using hospitals and schools to hide in. Likewise I haven't seen authenticated war crimes by Russia outside of not providing the required warning before bombing the hospital/school.

[temporal1]

Part of war is to dehumanize your opponent ... That is what allows war crimes to be committed.

At the same time, its very hard to convince people to kill someone that they view as an equal member of the human race.
This would be somewhat mitigated by defending your home as well.

I have seen several claims of war crimes committed by the Ukraine forces and so far I haven't seen much authenticated outside of them using hospitals and schools to hide in. Likewise I haven't seen authenticated war crimes by Russia outside of not providing the required warning before bombing the hospital/school.

Thanks. i believe you.
As in all ALLEGED violations, civilian or military, even in the heat of war, war crimes must be proven.

The example given (handcuffed, shot in kneecaps) sounds more like gangster activity than well-trained military.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Well, my point is it isn't "godly" power and it stands in competition with the Kingdom of God. God can use (ordain) it for his own purposes, just like he miraculously redeemed the most heinous event in all history, the state killing Jesus. But all state power/violence stands against him, his character, and his kingdom - as perfectly revealed and founded by the person Jesus.

Further "divine right" was anchored in the basic belief that Romans 13 legitimizes as godly exercise of power, state violence. I am not saying that is where you are, perhaps you can clarify, but it seems that is where your position leads. That in fact there is such a thing as a godly state/violence. Perhaps you are not saying that though...in which case we likely agree.

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.

Yes this is a difference between us. As I see it, the only differences in state violence is the extent to which they are efficient in using it to support their own ends. However the underlying ethic (the sword) is the same. Morally they operate under the same ideas. Some are more efficient than others to be sure. It is like this, if a person steals $100 dollars he is a thief. If a person steals $100 million he is also a thief. To be sure their capacity to steal was different but morally/ethically there is no difference. The Russian/Ukrainian conflict is actually an excellent example of this playing out right before our eyes.

Clearly God as perfectly revealed by Jesus can't be "on both sides" ordaining them as ministers to kill each other, read bomb hospital and blow out kneecaps. So one might argue, well they just aren't functioning like they should, but in the end, the argument they aren't a "true scotsman" fails in the face of empirical and historical evidence. The Ukrainian Russian conflict is how the Kingdoms of this World work. There is only one godly kingdom, that is, the Kingdom of God. Everything else is in competition with it they way I see it.

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

There is no "right to rule" where that means using violence and coercion. That is a worldly kingdom concept. King Jesus rules alone as a suffering servant. We are in his kingdom also as suffering servants - if we are his followers. Violence, and its use, don't establish "rights" to rule. Violence is merely a lever by which political groups wield power to defend and protect their own interests. Historically again, that argument is nearly unassailable with regard to the nation-state. There is only one kingdom that lays down "right to rule" in suffering love...and invites perfect communion, that is community.

You don't believe in the God-ordainedness of government

More precisely, I don't believe God, as perfectly revealed by Jesus, uses violence as lever for the salvation of the world. I think violence is explicitly anti-Christ. I think Paul merely describes how God can use pagan governments for his own purposes. I don't think there is any prescription of divine sanction of bombs, electric chairs, and guns.

I don't think you're an anarchist...I think you're a Christian Anarchist.

Perhaps unsurprisingly I don't identify with the way that page articulates. I am for the state/kingdom. I am for a country. The Kingdom of God is that political state - but it doesn't use the weapons of violence. But the Kingdom of God is a real and present polity. Jesus as Lord, as Howard noted, is a political statement. It isn't an anarchist one.

As for Twas Seeding Time - the book recounts how the Committees of Correspondence, led by the colonial govt, extorted Mennonite businesses in order for them to do business. The question was, should the businesses allow themselves to be extorted for the purpose of funding a violent American rebellion. Many Mennonites refused. However, some took a "real politick" approach and went with it. This split the church in two and the Reformed Mennonites were born. (Later at some point...all Mennonites accepted the new regime)

[joey_the_ox]

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.

You might have missed this from the other thread:

Your assessment of my leanings with regard to ECT are correct...if that is what you mean by hell. But perhaps we leave that convo for another time as well.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

You might have missed this from the other thread:

Your assessment of my leanings with regard to ECT are correct...if that is what you mean by hell. But perhaps we leave that convo for another time as well.

Ooops, my mistake.

[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 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.

And I am pretty solidly with HK in #2, with appreciative sympathies (and some intellectual/theological connectedness) to the perspectives of #1 &# 3. Together as Christocentric dualists - I believe at the core we are all one tribe. I would gladly break bread with all of these brothers.

[Ken]

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.

And I am pretty solidly with HK in #2, with appreciative sympathies (and some intellectual/theological connectedness) to the perspectives of #1 &# 3. Together as Christocentric dualists - I believe at the core we are all one tribe. I would gladly break bread with all of these brothers.

I would suggest there is a 4th approach which if I have more time I could diagram. But essentially grounded in two questions:

1. Does Christianity contain within it universal moral teachings (for all humans) or is it simply a moral code that applies only to Christians themselves? The answer to this question determines one's interaction with the non-Christian world. I would suggest that the answer to that question for most here is YES. Christianity contains within it universal moral codes. That is why Christians advocate that Christian morals and ethics be reflected in secular laws. Whether we are talking about abortion, LGBT issues, or war and peace.

2. If Christianity does contain universal moral truths, can those be communicated or expressed without resorting to Christian mysticism or beliefs? In other words, do they stand on their own or do they require conversion/acceptance of Christianity in order to be understood? Take for example the war in Ukraine. Without going back through this thread and finding individual quotes, I have seen expressed the notion that if only Putin and Zelenskyy could be "brought to Christ" or shown the light this war could be resolved. Well, maybe that is true. But it also means that Christianity has nothing to offer in resolving conflicts such as these other than evangelism. That is a notion I disagree with. If Christian morals and ethics are compelling, one should be able to make a case for them without requiring evangelism or conversion.

Another example is the issue of LGBT rights. If Christians wish to argue for specific public policies relating to LGBT rights (the actual subject of this thread) can they do so on universal moral or ethical grounds that can be universally understood by members of all faiths or no faiths? Or must they resort to citing bible verses and proof-texting specific ancient Christian texts. From my point of view, if Christians are going to advocate for such laws or restrictions applying to all citizens they should be able to do so expressing universal moral codes not ones specific to Christianity.

I'll try to draw up a diagram that more clearly expresses what I am saying.