LGBT and Christian Persecution

[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.

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.

Whether or not violence is intrinsically evil I suppose depends on your definition of violence. Instead of coercion and violence maybe I should say coercion and force.

What does your "better way" look like in the context of the society of the family? Do you agree that coercive power can be wielded justly by someone acting in the role of a father? And that this is not opposed to "suffering love" and the way of Jesus? (Though perhaps it is opposed to "suffering love" in the sense you use the term.) As I said before, attempts to give children "liberty" in a sort of libertarian sense obviously fail and do not have the ultimate good of the child in mind.

[joshuabgood]

What does your "better way" look like in the context of the society of the family? Do you agree that coercive power can be wielded justly by someone acting in the role of a father? And that this is not opposed to "suffering love" and the way of Jesus? (Though perhaps it is opposed to "suffering love" in the sense you use the term.) As I said before, attempts to give children "liberty" in a sort of libertarian sense obviously fail and do not have the ultimate good of the child in mind.

Well...my counselor once told me "Josh, you can't really force/coerce anybody to do anything important." This was in the context of my children whom I was trying to coerce into certain behaviors I desired. I was resistant to that at the time. Where I am at now, I have a dim view, generally, of corporal punishment. I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

[joey_the_ox]

What does your "better way" look like in the context of the society of the family? Do you agree that coercive power can be wielded justly by someone acting in the role of a father? And that this is not opposed to "suffering love" and the way of Jesus? (Though perhaps it is opposed to "suffering love" in the sense you use the term.) As I said before, attempts to give children "liberty" in a sort of libertarian sense obviously fail and do not have the ultimate good of the child in mind.

Well...my counselor once told me "Josh, you can't really force/coerce anybody to do anything important." This was in the context of my children whom I was trying to coerce into certain behaviors I desired. I was resistant to that at the time. Where I am at now, I have a dim view, generally, of corporal punishment. I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

I agree that one cannot be coerced into any important choice. Rather the goal of a father is to lead his children to virtue, a process which at times may require coercion, but the end result of which is that they have the moral discipline, ability, and freedom to make the right choices for themselves.

But moral authority is not opposed to positional authority with the power to coerce, as you seem to think. And a father as a father holds a position within a society that carries with it the power to coerce. Andrew Willard Jones once put it like this (emphasis mine):

...the first and probably most powerful instance of coercion within a polity is a father disciplining his son. Coercion must be used very carefully and can only be efficacious and just within the structure of the peace itself—it can never be mistaken for some essential aspect of the politics that constitutes that peace. Coercion does not show us where politics is happening. It shows us where the conversation has stopped or has not yet begun; it shows us where politics is, tragically, not happening. Force is present exactly where voluntary, human action is absent. Nevertheless, the possibility of physical coercion in our fallen state is a necessary aspect of just authority.

Regardless of your view of corporal punishment, would you not agree that there are cases in which a father should apply some sort of physical coercion to his children, and that indeed by not doing so can be not living up to his role as a father? In other words, it is not that there is a "better way," it is that in some cases this is the best way available given our state on this earth, regrettable though that may be. It is not in contradiction to the way of Jesus.

I would also emphasize that coercion is not only physical. And it has been my experience that many who attempt to never use physical coercion with their children end up using psychological coercion in a blatantly unjust and manipulative manner (of course I'm not saying this about you, just relating my personal experience).

[joey_the_ox]

I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

Recall that Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees because of their positional authority, while simultaneously calling out their hypocrisy:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

[GaryK]

I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

Recall that Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees because of their positional authority, while simultaneously calling out their hypocrisy:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

Add to that this passage, which seems to suggest the Lord at times deals with His children in not so pleasant ways:

Hebrews 12:6–8 (ESV): 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Well...I guess I am the only one then that thinks it is incoherent. If in fact the state is doing the will of God when it wields the sword, then I don't see how opposing said sword wielding (example capital punishment) isn't incoherent. For me I can't in my mind condone a certain action as God's will and then also oppose it as "not the way of Jesus" without feeling deeply incoherent.

If Jesus is the perfect representation of God, and if it is that confidence in the life and witness of Jesus that spurs our rejection of violence and capital punishment, in favor of the way of the cross, then I can't simultaneously, without feeling incoherent, advocate that the violence/sword of government is needed and makes a better society.

I'd like to hear from Gary...as I am suspicious he feels same as me on this point (albeit from the other side). I think that is what he is putting his finger on. How can one endorse a violent God-ordained institution and then at the same time criticize the use of said violence.

If they are ministers they are ministers. If they capitally punish Ted Bundy they are doing what God wants them to do and it is a positive good for society. If they wield capital violence for the sake of ending slavery, then that is a positive good for society. In essence this is what I hear you, HK, arguing. Government has improved/saved/bettered society by using violence to end slavery...in a way that suffering love is/was simply incapable of.

[joshuabgood]

I think our authority needs to be like Jesus, a moral authority. Not authority like the scribes/phariseees, a positional authority with the power to coerce.

Recall that Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees because of their positional authority, while simultaneously calling out their hypocrisy:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

Add to that this passage, which seems to suggest the Lord at times deals with His children in not so pleasant ways:

Hebrews 12:6–8 (ESV): 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Discipline is a word with a negative connotation for us...but a better rendering is perhaps "disciples." Jesus discipled/disciplined his 12, however he didn't violate them. Did he rebuke them? Sure...I am for confrontation and rebuke.

[joey_the_ox]

Well...I guess I am the only one then that thinks it is incoherent. If in fact the state is doing the will of God when it wields the sword, then I don't see how opposing said sword wielding (example capital punishment) isn't incoherent. For me I can't in my mind condone a certain action as God's will and then also oppose it as "not the way of Jesus" without feeling deeply incoherent.

I think the point is that not all instances of "sword wielding" are given a carte blanche. The sword must be wielded justly. If it is not wielded justly, or if the societal conditions for justice do not obtain with respect to a certain act (such as capital punishment), then that action can be opposed. (DanZ or HK please correct me if I'm not understanding your position.)

[joshuabgood]

Well...I guess I am the only one then that thinks it is incoherent. If in fact the state is doing the will of God when it wields the sword, then I don't see how opposing said sword wielding (example capital punishment) isn't incoherent. For me I can't in my mind condone a certain action as God's will and then also oppose it as "not the way of Jesus" without feeling deeply incoherent.

I think the point is that not all instances of "sword wielding" are given a carte blanche. The sword must be wielded justly. If it is not wielded justly, or if the societal conditions for justice do not obtain with respect to a certain act (such as capital punishment), then that action can be opposed. (DanZ or HK please correct me if I'm not understanding your position.)

I am under the impression that DanZ is categorically and morally against the death penalty in all cases.

[joey_the_ox]

Recall that Jesus told his followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees because of their positional authority, while simultaneously calling out their hypocrisy:

Add to that this passage, which seems to suggest the Lord at times deals with His children in not so pleasant ways:

Hebrews 12:6–8 (ESV): 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Discipline is a word with a negative connotation for us...but a better rendering is perhaps "disciples." Jesus discipled/disciplined his 12, however he didn't violate them. Did he rebuke them? Sure...I am for confrontation and rebuke.

What connotation do you think "discipline" had for the original readers of Hebrews?