LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Bootstrap]

This has been a great discussion so far (even if somewhat off-topic), with some very significant posts and thoughtful contributors.

Indeed. More than I could keep up with, I'm catching up slowly after a very busy work week. Let me try saying something about the strengths and weaknesses I see in some of these approaches. Each of these is a strength or a weakness in my opinion, I am trying to be clear about what my opinion is so others can respond by explaining theirs.

1. Separatistic (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.

   Strengths:
   
   The most important task for the Kingdom of God is to be the Kingdom of God, and it's very easy to get distracted by trying to offer opinions on That Other Kingdom, micro-managing in an area where we have neither authority nor responsibility. In any tragedy, there's work for the Kingdom of God to do. Beyond that, Christians have often had a bad track record of picking good guys vs. bad guys in the secular world, supporting people like Hitler, which really damages our witness.
   
   Weaknesses:
   
   If we speak to evil at all, carving out an exception for government-run evil seems artificial. Especially if it is selectively applied. To be consistent, Christians would have to stop speaking out against government involvement in abortion or sex education in public schools.
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.

   Strengths:
   
   If we speak to evil done by individuals, speaking to evil done by governments seems consistent, and we see a lot of that in the Old Testament prophets. These same prophets are quoted extensively in the New Testament, implying some kind of continuity. Clearly, some atrocities done by governments are as close to pure evil as I can imagine. Is the church unable to see and speak of evil?
   
   When working with Syrian refugees, I had one family show me a cell phone video of their house after it was destroyed by a bomb. They then told me about several executions they were forced to witness, as a family, and anyone who turned their heads away or closed their eyes was in danger of being killed. I didn't have to think about a lot of theology before shaking my head and saying how evil that was. Even though a government did it. And being able to say that seemed very relevant to the kind of work I think Christians are called to.
   
   Weaknesses:
   
   There is so much wrongdoing that we could spend every hour of every day condemning this or that, never finding the energy or focus we need to discern what God is calling us to in the Kingdom of God. This is a real danger - and in the Internet age, it's probably the default. And sometimes Christians have a bad track record of distinguishing real evil from minor annoyances or even false claims, which hurts our witness and our unity.
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.

   Strengths:
   
   This approach is a call to purity.
   
   Christians have sometimes treated politics or specific forms of government as though they were the Kingdom of God, or at least as though they were more real than the Kingdom of God. Christians have quite literally embraced leaders who insisted "I'm the only one who can save you", including Hitler. Christians have sometimes insisted that anyone who does not agree with their strong political views is not a true Christian. Christians have also excused wrongdoing by our own country with nationalistic slogans.
   
   This approach calls us away from all of that. And it is also a call to be active in being the Kingdom of God, the hands and feet of Jesus to the kinds of people Jesus reached out to.
   
   Weaknesses:
   
   In its purest form, this approach seems to say that all governments are equally wrong, therefore, the actions of governments are all equally wrong. Fines imposed by a public library and a genocide are not moral equivalents. And this approach also seems to treat valid Romans 13 authority to use violence to protect against wrongdoing the same way it treats clearly wrongful use of violence for blatantly selfish purposes, e.g. killing the owners of a property so that a leader can own it. Or genocide.
   
   Also, I think there are times for Christians to seek what is good and right in the public sphere. The church's public witness against racism and Apartheid during my lifetime was a real source of moral authority to many who were watching us from the outside.

[Bootstrap]

Dan...where position 2 really confuses me is around state violence. I hear you saying you are against the death penalty but also saying God uses the sword of government to establish order (presumably something good and salvific, at least in the societal sense). So I find position 2 (no offense intended Dan and HK), the least consistent of the three. It tries to have its cake and eat it too.

Joshua, do you agree that Romans 13 says that Caesar is sometimes acting as God's servant, with God's authority, while wielding the sword? To me, that seems inescapable.

Do you think there are times that violence done by governments is blatantly wrong and will incur judgement? To me, that also seems inescapable. I don't think that's inconsistent with the first paragraph.

Beyond that, I think there's room for legitimate differences on when a particular kind of violence is justifiable. It boils down to moral questions about the death penalty itself.

[Josh]

Boot,

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.

How do you know these are the right ways to judge governments? Based on the above criteria, you would have judged the Israelites as being very evil, despite them doing what God told them to do.

Why aren’t things like “allowing abortion” in your list, for example?

[Dan Z]

...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 think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

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 don't think we have to work out of a paradigm of moral equivalency. Some wrongs are greater, more egregious, and more causative than others. If we remain truly independent of the political patterns of this world, our responses to various wrongs eventually will not fit political templates (we'll know we've arrived when partisans from both sides begin to accuse us of infidelity. ) Russia's sin of aggression in invading their neighbor is Russia's sin. While Ukraine must not be encouraged to sin in response (frankly, I don't hear that happening in these discussions thus far), I don't feel we are necessarily obligated to condemn the victim in equal measure to the aggressor.

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

Ultimately our salt and light motivation is the ministry of reconciliation - reconciling people to God and helping them see, through us, His love for them. If a murder occurs, we stand with the victim's family first by acknowledging their grief, decrying the evil perpetrated upon them, and confirming that they too are victims. As Christians, we don't encourage them toward hatred and vengeance, but in empathy, we walk with them toward spiritual healing, forgiveness, and maybe even reconciliation. I don't see the actions of governments as essentially any different than the actions of individuals (after all, governments are made up of people). In this case, as peacemakers, our response to the death and destruction brought about by the Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the same, with the same ends in mind for all involved - healing, forgiveness, and maybe even reconciliation to others and to God. The way of Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed, the victimized, and "the least of these."

[HondurasKeiser]

...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 think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

This is an unformed thought that I am clacking out in the few minutes I have available:
The role of Christians in Russia is to be salt and light in a country that was/is itching for invasion and conquest...and for Christians in Ukraine to be salt and light to countrymen that want to fight for preservation and revenge...and for Christians in the U.S. to be salt and light for people that want to follow the pathos of "doing something" and saving the poor Ukrainians and making Putin pay. This can be done without marching, statements, political activism - it is anything but quietism, passivity and a pretension to neutrality - it should be done as a body of believers.

[GaryK]

...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 think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

This is an unformed thought that I am clacking out in the few minutes I have available:
The role of Christians in Russia is to be salt and light in a country that was/is itching for invasion and conquest...and for Christians in Ukraine to be salt and light to countrymen that want to fight for preservation and revenge...and for Christians in the U.S. to be salt and light for people that want to follow the pathos of "doing something" and saving the poor Ukrainians and making Putin pay. This can be done without marching, statements, political activism - it is anything but quietism, passivity and a pretension to neutrality - it should be done as a body of believers.

I don't have any reservations about signing on to something like this, HK although I'm not certain what you mean by "making Putin pay". I have been thinking and praying about the possibility of our church getting involved with Ukrainian refugees.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

This is an unformed thought that I am clacking out in the few minutes I have available:
The role of Christians in Russia is to be salt and light in a country that was/is itching for invasion and conquest...and for Christians in Ukraine to be salt and light to countrymen that want to fight for preservation and revenge...and for Christians in the U.S. to be salt and light for people that want to follow the pathos of "doing something" and saving the poor Ukrainians and making Putin pay. This can be done without marching, statements, political activism - it is anything but quietism, passivity and a pretension to neutrality - it should be done as a body of believers.

I don't have any reservations about signing on to something like this, HK although I'm not certain what you mean by "making Putin pay". I have been thinking and praying about the possibility of our church getting involved with Ukrainian refugees.

I think there's a sense among quite a few in the American intelligentsia that it's not enough to end this conflict; we need to also make Putin an international pariah. I heard this explicitly from Neocon, Eli Lake on the Commentary Magazine podcast last week and we all low-key heard it from President Biden last week as well, before his gaffe was quickly explained away

[Dan Z]

...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 think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

This is an unformed thought that I am clacking out in the few minutes I have available:
The role of Christians in Russia is to be salt and light in a country that was/is itching for invasion and conquest...and for Christians in Ukraine to be salt and light to countrymen that want to fight for preservation and revenge...and for Christians in the U.S. to be salt and light for people that want to follow the pathos of "doing something" and saving the poor Ukrainians and making Putin pay. This can be done without marching, statements, political activism - it is anything but quietism, passivity and a pretension to neutrality - it should be done as a body of believers.

Agreed. Practically speaking, for me this salt and light function is not activistic, or grounded on demonstrations or formal statements, but is personal, relational, and as you say "done as a body of believers." Responses like this usually start via conversations among brothers and sisters, who spur each another to act in the name of Christ.

[GaryK]

This is an unformed thought that I am clacking out in the few minutes I have available:
The role of Christians in Russia is to be salt and light in a country that was/is itching for invasion and conquest...and for Christians in Ukraine to be salt and light to countrymen that want to fight for preservation and revenge...and for Christians in the U.S. to be salt and light for people that want to follow the pathos of "doing something" and saving the poor Ukrainians and making Putin pay. This can be done without marching, statements, political activism - it is anything but quietism, passivity and a pretension to neutrality - it should be done as a body of believers.

I don't have any reservations about signing on to something like this, HK although I'm not certain what you mean by "making Putin pay". I have been thinking and praying about the possibility of our church getting involved with Ukrainian refugees.

I think there's a sense among quite a few in the American intelligentsia that it's not enough to end this conflict; we need to also make Putin an international pariah. I heard this explicitly from Neocon, Eli Lake on the Commentary Magazine podcast last week and we all low-key heard it from President Biden last week as well, before his gaffe was quickly explained away

That explains well.

[GaryK]

...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 think this is a valid concern Gary - when considering the danger of speaking up against governmental wrong we should only get involved if we have a robust enough two-kingdom worldview to avoid being drawn into partisan loyalties and worldly solutions. Politicized causes like racial equity or abortion, for example, can be "gateway drugs" of sorts, leading some two-Kingdom Christians into soul-stealing political worldviews. For this reason, I think two-kingdom Christians should be slow to become very involved in politicized causes, and selective about which causes warrant a response. However, while this danger is a reason to be cautious, and perhaps even a reason for the vulnerable to keep clear of politicized issues, I don't believe it is sufficient reason for Christians to give up their moral witness in addressing governmental abuse.

I think a difference I'm seeing in our views is that you seem to be concerned that the witness of Jesus' Kingdom might be diminished if we as His followers do not put out formal statements calling out what countries like Russia are doing, while I believe the witness of Jesus' Kingdom has more of a potential to be diminished by putting out what I believe most observers would consider to be political statements. Maybe, I'm not understanding what you would include in such a statement, but I'm wondering how people would know that we are 2 kingdom adherents if these statements call out only the evil of oppressors, which is why I wrote the next part. Maybe a sample statement of what you have in mind by calling foul would help me better understand your position.

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 don't think we have to work out of a paradigm of moral equivalency. Some wrongs are greater, more egregious, and more causative than others. If we remain truly independent of the political patterns of this world, our responses to various wrongs eventually will not fit political templates (we'll know we've arrived when partisans from both sides begin to accuse us of infidelity. ) Russia's sin of aggression in invading their neighbor is Russia's sin. While Ukraine must not be encouraged to sin in response (frankly, I don't hear that happening in these discussions thus far), I don't feel we are necessarily obligated to condemn the victim in equal measure to the aggressor.

The question this raises in my mind goes back to an earlier question I raised - what all is included in calling foul on governmental evil?

To me, this goes deeper than working out of a paradigm of moral equivalency. It seems to me that Jesus was pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount, what the role and calling of those being oppressed is and what their response should be. He would have had the perfect opportunity to call out oppressors in the SOM, but it seems Jesus simply assumed that wrongdoing will be committed by oppressors. Rather than focusing on the wrongs of oppressors and saying that He stands with those being oppressed, against the oppressors, He called His followers to not be guided by "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" principle but to return good for evil. So my questions are: Using what Jesus taught in the SOM and applying it to the Russia/Ukraine saga, which one of these countries holds the greatest responsibility to do what is right? Which country is doing the greatest damage to the witness He wants His Kingdom to leave in this chaotic world?

Thinking about questions like these makes me even more convinced that trying to insert Kingdom principles into what earthly political systems do, just doesn't work. I'm really doubtful Jesus expects Ukraine not to fight back and I'm doubtful He expects Russia not to do what it feels is in its best interest. Why should we expect anything different.

I don't believe Jesus was passive or indifferent to the plight of the oppressed at the hands of oppressors by saying what He did in the SOM. He actually gave them a formula that can make an oppressed person come out on top in His view, even under continual oppression. It really is an upside down Kingdom that makes no sense to people still in their sins or to earthly political systems or the people in them.

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

Ultimately our salt and light motivation is the ministry of reconciliation - reconciling people to God and helping them see, through us, His love for them. If a murder occurs, we stand with the victim's family first by acknowledging their grief, decrying the evil perpetrated upon them, and confirming that they too are victims. As Christians, we don't encourage them toward hatred and vengeance, but in empathy, we walk with them toward spiritual healing, forgiveness, and maybe even reconciliation. I don't see the actions of governments as essentially any different than the actions of individuals (after all, governments are made up of people). In this case, as peacemakers, our response to the death and destruction brought about by the Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the same, with the same ends in mind for all involved - healing, forgiveness, and maybe even reconciliation to others and to God. The way of Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed, the victimized, and "the least of these."

I believe the way of Christ calls us to stand with the oppressed by pointing them to the Kingdom where suffering at the hands of oppressors is considered taking on the identity of Christ in His sufferings and where rejoicing in suffering is entirely possible because that is the way of Jesus. I believe it also calls us to present the Kingdom of Jesus to those doing the oppressing by showing them the love of Jesus, which attempts to overcome evil with good rather than overcoming evil with condemnation. At some point I may tell the story of something my wife and I experienced at the tender age of 23 one dark night in Belize that has made a lasting impact on me and convinced me that the way of Jesus in dealing with sinful, angry people is very powerful.