LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Dan Z]

Lastly, Dan, I don't see how if you are position 2 guy you can ethically oppose the death penalty in all cases.

I don't believe that Rom 13 is a carte blanche for state killing and use of excessive force. It seems to me to be rather narrowly describing the just police function of the state. Nevertheless, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of other reasons to question the death penalty, including its historic misuse (e.g. against Christ, most of his Apostles, and our Anabaptist forebears), its irreversibility in time of wrong sentencing, its historically unequal use against minorities and the poor, its questionable efficacy as a deterrent, and most importantly, the fact that Christ teaches against the "eye for an eye" paradigm.

[temporal1]

Extending your logic - Why do you so vociferously denounce abortion among the pagans then?
Jesus didn't teach "go ye into all the nations and teach them not to kill infants."

Murder is obviously wrong, and has been taught as wrong since the days of Cain and Abel.
It is taught in the Old Testament as wrong.

Christian pacifism, on the other hand, is not exactly a culturally universal value nor one that God even expected of his own people in the Old Testament. How can I expect someone to lay down their own life without them first having hope and belief in a promise of eternal life?

But I can easily expect someone not to go and murder a defenceless baby.

I don't believe that Rom 13 is a carte blanche for state killing and use of excessive force.
It seems to me to be rather narrowly describing the just police function of the state.

Nevertheless, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of other reasons to question the death penalty, including its historic misuse (e.g. against Christ, most of his Apostles, and our Anabaptist forebears), its irreversibility in time of wrong sentencing, its historically unequal use against minorities and the poor, its questionable efficacy as a deterrent, and most importantly, the fact that Christ teaches against the "eye for an eye" paradigm.

Murder is wrong, murder of defenseless innocents is wrong, murder without opportunity for legal defense is wrong.
Jesus’ chosen ones are children, not lawyers or scholars. How many can meet Jesus’ requirement?

Matthew 18:3
https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-3.htm

2Jesus invited a little child to stand among them.

3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.…

Even animals know to protect+nourish their young. It’s not confusing. Jesus is not confusing.

[joshuabgood]

Lastly, Dan, I don't see how if you are position 2 guy you can ethically oppose the death penalty in all cases.

I don't believe that Rom 13 is a carte blanche for state killing and use of excessive force. It seems to me to be rather narrowly describing the just police function of the state. Nevertheless, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of other reasons to question the death penalty, including its historic misuse (e.g. against Christ, most of his Apostles, and our Anabaptist forebears), its irreversibility in time of wrong sentencing, its historically unequal use against minorities and the poor, its questionable efficacy as a deterrent, and most importantly, the fact that Christ teaches against the "eye for an eye" paradigm.

Would you then also against war and police shootings etc for the same reasons? (If so then I don't think I am very far at all from you...at least as a matter of practice.)

[GaryK]

I suspect Gary and I share the same hermeneutic in #2 position - the main difference is that I am willing to call "foul" when governments act outside of their ordination...and Gary leaves the refereeing up to God.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit more today and something occurred to me that Josh touched on in the next post. What all does calling "foul" on government include?

What good does it do for Kingdom Christians to constantly be on the alert for governments all over the world doing things outside of their ordination and then making public statements about it. Statements that in many ways mirror political statements of those systems opposed to what the "wrong" side is doing, such as what is happening in Ukraine. Statements that, IMO, have the potential to stoke even more resentment and turmoil in an already chaotic and hateful world. If someone can point me to teachings of Jesus or the Apostles or examples in the NT that promote this idea of calling "foul" on governments, I will certainly rethink where I'm at on this.

Gary, as always, I appreciate both your position and your questions. We're really not far off from each other.

Perhaps I should say what I mean by "crying foul" on Governments and why it matters.

First, as you may know, I do not vote, I'm a conscientious objector, and by Christian vocation, I will not hold political or coercive power. I'm not a politically involved person, and am generally content to let governments do their thing - but I do try to be an informed observer. As I've mentioned before, I adhere to the historical Anabaptist position of not bearing the sword (as per the teaching of Christ and his Apostles), but also recognizing that God ordains governments to do so provisionally to keep order in a fallen world "outside of the perfection of Christ." I believe ultimately in the rule and reign of Christ and His peaceable Kingdom, and the way of Christ guides my life and witness. I believe that in the end, Christ and His transcendent kingdom of peace and justice will reign supreme - both spiritually and physically on this earth and in heaven - as he puts all power under his feet (and ends the need for secular authority). I also believe Christ-followers are called by Jesus to be salt and light in a bitter and dark world, and this calling is not just evangelistic (spiritualized), but is physically and ethically part of how the Kingdom is witnessed and advanced.

All of this colors what I will and will not say to those in authority.

For example, I won't advocate in support of war or the use of violence, and I work hard to avoid conforming to secular political ideologies. I can't speak to all the wrong in the world, but when confronted with a wrong, I will act and use my voice to speak up on behalf of the oppressed as my Lord has done, including rebuking obvious abuses of power that cause gratuitous pain and suffering - be they individual, corporate, or governmental. I do so not to inflame or to encourage retribution, but to show empathy with the downtrodden, to bear prophetic witness to the teachings of Christ, and to season the World with the ethics of the Kingdom.

Abortion is bad...sex trafficking and exploitation are bad...slavery is bad...destroying lives and livelihoods via an invasion is bad...I believe all of these things grieve the heart of God...and I think we should say so.

I believe as well that we hold to the same basic principles that inform our views on this.

I think my primary concern in Christians calling out governmental evil is not that some of what government does isn't evil (all evil done in the world today is a direct result of sin) but rather that the act of calling out governmental evil (Russia) for the sake of standing with the oppressed (Ukraine) is almost indistinguishable from the political views of opposing political systems, and may, in fact, be the first step into the political arena. I'm pretty sure Ukraine and the West would stand with those Christians who call out the evil Russia is doing and would say they are doing everything in their power to stop the oppression of the Ukrainian people by Russia. I'm also pretty sure Ukraine and the West would scoff at the idea of calling out the evil Russia is doing while at the same time not standing with them in their defense of their people.

Now, if, in the statements Christians put out about these governmental evils, the evils of both sides (it's just as much, if not more, against the teachings of Jesus for Ukraine to fight back as it is for Russia to start the war) are called out and the good news and teachings of Jesus are proclaimed in an attempt to call all individuals involved into the Kingdom of Jesus, I would have a much harder time arguing against such an approach. But, so far, in the case of the Russia/Ukraine war, I haven't really seen putting forth such statements being promoted here.

I'm also convinced that there are ways to stand with the oppressed without getting involved in the calling out of governmental evils.

[temporal1]

GaryK:
I'm also convinced that there are ways to stand with the oppressed without getting involved in the calling out of governmental evils.

o. you mean like Jesus?

[Sudsy]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... rt_789.cfm

[Dan Z]

Lastly, Dan, I don't see how if you are position 2 guy you can ethically oppose the death penalty in all cases.

I don't believe that Rom 13 is a carte blanche for state killing and use of excessive force. It seems to me to be rather narrowly describing the just police function of the state. Nevertheless, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of other reasons to question the death penalty, including its historic misuse (e.g. against Christ, most of his Apostles, and our Anabaptist forebears), its irreversibility in time of wrong sentencing, its historically unequal use against minorities and the poor, its questionable efficacy as a deterrent, and most importantly, the fact that Christ teaches against the "eye for an eye" paradigm.

Would you then also against war and police shootings etc for the same reasons? (If so then I don't think I am very far at all from you...at least as a matter of practice.)

It's funny - I suspect the differences between you, Gary, and me, as seen from outside of the Anabaptist fold, would be virtually indistinguishable to most observers. They would rightly observe that, in practice, we are living out the same witness and hermeneutic as brothers. We are talking about fine-tuning shades of Christocentric two-kingdom dualism here - and again I've appreciated the brotherly nature of the conversation.

As a follower of Jesus, my bent is against human war and violence in any form as ultimately outside the perfect will of God and anathema within the peaceable Kingdom of Christ. Even in the case of God's provisional ordination of a just police/defensive force in the face of evil (Rom 13), I recognize that all deadly use of force, whether at the individual, police, or national level, is fraught with human frailty and a proclivity toward abuse and excess. Thus, I bear witness to peace and a better way in Christ Jesus.

Practically speaking, when it comes to the use of violence at whatever level, I'm always against it within the family of Christ, and I never encourage it outside of the faith. I also have no problem condemning unjust and wanton violence in any circumstance at any level. When the police use judicious force against an armed assailant, or when a sovereign country uses force to defend the lives and livelihoods of its citizens against a foreign invader, the most I can muster is regretful understanding - still with an appeal to peaceful solutions.

...I suspect all three of us are not far apart at all.

[temporal1]

King Herod was restrained+merciful compared to what “hath been wrought” following RvW.

It’s not possible to imagine what today’s world would be, without RvW, or if it had been overturned at any earlier point.
Some would have had to look elsewhere for corporate profits. $$$$

But, overall society? i have to imagine “better,” because valuing life is proven better.

[Bootstrap]

It's funny - I suspect the differences between you, Gary, and me, as seen from outside of the Anabaptist fold, would be virtually indistinguishable to most observers. They would rightly observe that, in practice, we are living out the same witness and hermeneutic as brothers. We are talking about fine-tuning shades of Christocentric two-kingdom dualism here - and again I've appreciated the brotherly nature of the conversation.

The fact that we are having a serious discussion of these questions at all sets us apart from much of Christianity. Bible-centric believers wrestling with what it means to live as the Kingdom of God, in this world but not of it ... that's great.

Practically speaking, when it comes to the use of violence at whatever level, I'm always against it within the family of Christ, and I never encourage it outside of the faith. I also have no problem condemning unjust and wanton violence in any circumstance at any level. Even when the police use judicious force against an armed assailant, or when a sovereign country uses force to defend the lives and livelihoods of its citizens against a foreign invader, the most I can muster is regretful understanding - still with an appeal to peaceful solutions.

That's largely where I come out, too.

I think there are governments that are clearly evil in ways that other governments are not. Some governments commit genocide, others do not. Some governments kill or persecute those who disagree with them, blatantly steal what they want, and basically allow their leaders to do whatever they want to their citizens, which generally results in real evil. Other governments protect against these things - never perfectly, but enough to make a difference.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul tells us that Christians will judge the world - and even judge the angels!

If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

Paul's point is that we should not need secular courts to settle matters among believers, but he says quite clearly that we will also judge the world.

So aren't we in a position to at least say that the worst atrocities that some governments commit are evil?

[Bootstrap]

Acts 16 shows Paul engaged in a public witness against the government. Not for his own sake, but for those who come after him. The magistrate had already ordered Paul to be released, he was free to go, but Paul insisted on a public apology. I assume they insisted on this so that the magistrate would not do the same thing to someone else.

When daylight came, the chief magistrates sent the police to say, “Release those men.”

The jailer reported these words to Paul: “The magistrates have sent orders for you to be released. So come out now and go in peace.”

But Paul said to them, “They beat us in public without a trial, although we are Roman citizens, and threw us in jail. And now are they going to send us away secretly? Certainly not! On the contrary, let them come themselves and escort us out.”

The police reported these words to the magistrates. They were afraid when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens. So they came to appease them, and escorting them from prison, they urged them to leave town. After leaving the jail, they came to Lydia’s house, where they saw and encouraged the brothers and sisters, and departed.

To me, this is one clear example of speaking truth to power in the New Testament.