LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Dan Z]

JBG, if the Supreme Court we’re to not only strike down Roe but also find a fundamental right to life beginning at conception. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? When the U.S. ended slavery, was that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it really so difficult to tell when a government is doing good or evil?

The underlying question is, are the means of the state, violence and coercion, worthy (or as a whole salvific for society) when used to promote something virtuous? Which gets to the "salvific" question I asked earlier. Do we believe that violence and coercion are useful in providing salvific good to a society? (Where salvific means they improve, make better, make more whole (that is holy), purify, sustain, preserve...etc.)

It's strange to me that you latch on to that term, 'salvific' when talking about action by the State - when most of us, when we think of that word, only associate it with the action of Christ, redeeming us from our sins and justifying us before God. Let me ask it a different way, is it good or bad that the U.S. no longer has slavery?

I've had the same reaction to the term. I don't see state police action as 'salvific' in the Christian use of the term anyway. The sense I get from reading Romans 13 (in the light of Christ & the prophets) is that the state's just use of the sword is provisional in nature - a "stop-gap" if you will - one of the ways God allows to keep order in a fallen world until Christ's Kingdom comes in its fullness and makes obsolete the need for carnal police action.

[joey_the_ox]

The underlying question is, are the means of the state, violence and coercion, worthy (or as a whole salvific for society) when used to promote something virtuous? Which gets to the "salvific" question I asked earlier. Do we believe that violence and coercion are useful in providing salvific good to a society? (Where salvific means they improve, make better, make more whole (that is holy), purify, sustain, preserve...etc.)

It's strange to me that you latch on to that term, 'salvific' when talking about action by the State - when most of us, when we think of that word, only associate it with the action of Christ, redeeming us from our sins and justifying us before God. Let me ask it a different way, is it good or bad that the U.S. no longer has slavery?

I've had the same reaction to the term. I don't see state police action as 'salvific' in the Christian use of the term anyway. The sense I get from reading Romans 13 (in the light of Christ & the prophets) is that the state's just use of the sword is provisional in nature - a "stop-gap" if you will - one of the ways God allows to keep order in a fallen world until Christ's Kingdom comes in its fullness and makes obsolete the need for carnal police action.

Yes, and the coercion or discipline of children is similar. It is not something that will exist when the Kingdom comes in its fullness, and for that reason we do feel legitimate regret when we discipline our children. Not remorse, like we would feel for committing a sin or moral failure, but regret that it is something undesirable and imperfect yet necessary in our current state. (Here I'm not pushing a one-to-one correspondence in opposition to the classical Anabaptist view, just pointing out that it is possible to view the state's use of the sword as regrettable and yet necessary and in fact something that can bring about good.)

[HondurasKeiser]

Further - I think Gary's critique of position 2 is valid. There is not a coherent way to assess when a government is acting "right" with regard to use of violence (that is godly use - except this also doesn't make sense because we know God is like Jesus =) versus when it is acting "wrong" (except they always act against the principles of Jesus because their ethic is fundamentally a violent one).

I just can't quite get over that cognitive dissonance hump in position #2 yet --- maybe I will once I am older like =). Further, I don't see a big problem with taking Paul's statement purely descriptive about what is, not what ought to be.

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

Of course there is - look at the material results and the means used to get there. If the Supreme Court outlaws abortion tout court, it will be a material good (I think we could all agree about that) and the use of force, violence or coercion would be minimal. That would be a good thing - a decision made by the State that recognizes true Justice and the value of all human life and that arrives at there with no bloodshed.

What is incoherent is the condemnation of worldly states as evil because they abort the unborn, instantiate white supremacy, oppress the poor and war against their neighbors and then, when they avoid or undo those injustices, to call that action evil as well because they used violence and force to achieve their ends. If all action by the state towards this or that, abortion or un-abortion, gay marriage or un-gay marriage, war or un-war is equally evil because at root all action relies on violence and power and coercion then your condemnation of them for specific actions is nonsensical and really we have nothing to say because at the end of the day, 'Evil states gonna do evil things'.

Furthermore, why shouldn't states, if they're nothing more than mafia thugs, just create hells on Earth to their own enrichment? What incentive do they have in creating beautiful, fairly peaceful, fairly just places like Ephrata, Pennsylvania for nonresistant Christians to enjoy and prosper in? Is that the way murderers and mafiosos and thugs operate? I've mentioned this to you before but it bears repeating, your view of the state is the same as that of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli - that being that a ruler is bound only by his will and power and that he is beholden to no true standard of justice. If that's true then a state that avoids war or protects fetuses or dismantles systems of slavery and racial segregation seems to be acting out of 'false consciousness' for they have no real reason to want to do so.

I think there's nothing incoherent about saying that in the Kingdom of Christ, the violence and force wielded by states, necessary to limit the amount of evil that abounds in the world, is not only forbidden but entirely unnecessary. Ours is the better way but while Christ still taries, the state must still perform a function to police its own.

[joey_the_ox]

I think there's nothing incoherent about saying that in the Kingdom of Christ, the violence and force wielded by states, necessary to limit the amount of evil that abounds in the world, is not only forbidden but entirely unnecessary. Ours is the better way but while Christ still taries, the state must still perform a function to police its own.

Would you be comfortable modifying the last sentence to "perform a function to police society"? As in the particular society over which a ruler has power, and which Christians might be a part of? Because Romans 13 doesn't leave out the people to whom Paul is writing as exempt from the authority.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think there's nothing incoherent about saying that in the Kingdom of Christ, the violence and force wielded by states, necessary to limit the amount of evil that abounds in the world, is not only forbidden but entirely unnecessary. Ours is the better way but while Christ still taries, the state must still perform a function to police its own.

Would you be comfortable modifying the last sentence to "perform a function to police society"? As in the particular society over which a ruler has power, and which Christians might be a part of? Because Romans 13 doesn't leave out the people to whom Paul is writing as exempt from the authority.

Yes, because we as Christians need to be policed from time to time as well. Just look at the current push in liberal Anabaptist circles to involve the authorities every time there are allegations of sexual abuse in the church as an example of that.

[HondurasKeiser]

I'd also, by way of addendum to my post about incoherence, mention that Dan's situating himself in Option 2 whilst being in opposition to the death penalty is in no way incoherent. The way of Christ brings to bear in his thinking a radical valuation of all human life, no matter the circumstance or evil a life may have engaged in. He applies that value to his judgements about actions that the state takes to perform its police functions and determines that, a state doesn't need to put to death certain criminals in order to adequately police society and mitigate the spread of evil. Indeed, a state should, insofar as it can, lean towards the preservation of all human life whilst performing its police function.

Perhaps Dan is his wrong in his assessments about the inefficacy of the death penalty, or perhaps he's right. That's debatable. He is not though, incoherent.

[joey_the_ox]

I'd also, by way of addendum to my post about incoherence, mention that Dan's situating himself in Option 2 whilst being in opposition to the death penalty is in no way incoherent. The way of Christ brings to bear in his thinking a radical valuation of all human life, no matter the circumstance or evil a life may have engaged in. He applies that value to his judgements about actions that the state takes to perform its police functions and determines that, a state doesn't need to put to death certain criminals in order to adequately police society and mitigate the spread of evil. Indeed, a state should, insofar as it can, lean towards the preservation of all human life whilst performing its police function.

Perhaps Dan is his wrong in his assessments about the inefficacy of the death penalty, or perhaps he's right. That's debatable. He is not though, incoherent.

I also see no incoherence in this view of the death penalty.

[joshuabgood]

JBG, if the Supreme Court we’re to not only strike down Roe but also find a fundamental right to life beginning at conception. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? When the U.S. ended slavery, was that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it really so difficult to tell when a government is doing good or evil?

The underlying question is, are the means of the state, violence and coercion, worthy (or as a whole salvific for society) when used to promote something virtuous? Which gets to the "salvific" question I asked earlier. Do we believe that violence and coercion are useful in providing salvific good to a society? (Where salvific means they improve, make better, make more whole (that is holy), purify, sustain, preserve...etc.)

It's strange to me that you latch on to that term, 'salvific' when talking about action by the State - when most of us, when we think of that word, only associate it with the action of Christ, redeeming us from our sins and justifying us before God. Let me ask it a different way, is it good or bad that the U.S. no longer has slavery?

Well...it is a bit hard for me to keep up with everything, but that isn't because I don't have thoughts

I use salvific because the underlying question is what actually "saves" society. I see salvation as more than just a metaphysical/mystical and/or individual experience. Jesus noted that his good news brings a more abundant life, which of course includes society. Therefore, I think the question is in fact legitimate. Does one believe that violence and coercion generate a better society (on the whole)? Sure there are some winners, perhaps, but at what cost.

The other underlying question is do we really believe that suffering love is the greatest weapon against evil? Is in fact the way of Jesus, the way of the cross, the suffering servant, more powerful than guns, tanks, and stun guns? Is there more redemptive utility in forgiveness and suffering love than retributive justice?

I would advocate for the utility of suffering love. And therefore, if we believe in the utility of said weaponry, why wouldn't we advocate for all to appropriate said weaponry?

I feel like position 1 and 2 basically end up saying something like, "We believe in suffering love, unless it gets really bad, then we need the state to step in and use violence to save/preserve/better society. See...look at slavery in the USA as exhibit A. I now rest my case."

As I said I have a lot of additional thoughts about the Civil War that I could share if I had unlimited time...

[joey_the_ox]

I use salvific because the underlying question is what actually "saves" society. I see salvation as more than just a metaphysical/mystical experience. Jesus noted that his good news brings a more abundant life, which of course includes society. Therefore, I think the question is in fact legitimate. Does one believe that violence and coercion generate a better society (on the whole)? Sure there are some winners, perhaps, but at what cost.

Your underlying assumption here, which I believe I have pointed out before, is that violence and coercion are intrinsically evil. That is a debatable assumption and indeed one that I believe is not taken by the classical Anabaptist view (proponents of that view please correct me if I am wrong). If it were true, the discipline a father applies to his child would be an intrinsically evil and abusive act in all cases.

Power wielded justly (authority) is not intrinsically evil, even in cases when the use of that power involves coercion. Power wielded for private gain (tyranny) is. The just application of power can indeed generate a better society (on the whole). It is capable of leading people away from evil and towards good, as Paul indicates in Romans 13. It does not have to be a question of "winners" and "losers." Again, if it were, every father would be a "winner" and his child whom he disciplines a "loser." But that is not the case.

[joshuabgood]

I use salvific because the underlying question is what actually "saves" society. I see salvation as more than just a metaphysical/mystical experience. Jesus noted that his good news brings a more abundant life, which of course includes society. Therefore, I think the question is in fact legitimate. Does one believe that violence and coercion generate a better society (on the whole)? Sure there are some winners, perhaps, but at what cost.

Your underlying assumption here, which I believe I have pointed out before, is that violence and coercion are intrinsically evil. That is a debatable assumption and indeed one that I believe is not taken by the classical Anabaptist view (proponents of that view please correct me if I am wrong). If it were true, the discipline a father applies to his child would be an intrinsically evil and abusive act in all cases.

Power wielded justly (authority) is not intrinsically evil, even in cases when the use of that power involves coercion. Power wielded for private gain (tyranny) is. The just application of power can indeed generate a better society (on the whole). It is capable of leading people away from evil and towards good, as Paul indicates in Romans 13. It does not have to be a question of "winners" and "losers." Again, if it were, every father would be a "winner" and his child whom he disciplines a "loser." But that is not the case.

Almost, but not quite. I don't think I would say intrinsically evil. I would like Paul said, "and yet I show you a better way..." As I said before, if one shoots a Russian in self defense (or Ukrainian), I can't directly call that wrong/unjust. I understand it. If the state executes a murderer on the electric chair...samething. I would stop short of saying that is intrinsically evil, I think. (Though as I now edit this I have second thoughts...maybe violence is intrinsically evil.)

I would advocate for a better way, with more utility. The way of Jesus.

God could, if wanted, coerce us all into discipleship. His great love for us though, doesn't coerce, he gives us the liberty to step into his love or reject it.