LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Dan Z]

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...

This is a helpful in understanding your perspective....but I wonder where the line is where the moral exemption for politics kicks in.

If your child hits another child, I assume you would quickly correct his action as wrong. If you were a teacher in a classroom, and two children cheated on a test, they would certainly hear from you a lesson in morality. I assume you would be willing to condemn as sinful the actions of a murderer or rapist. What about a street gang terrorizing local shopkeepers? Or rioters burning cities and beating individuals? Or mob bosses running an extortion racket? What about the 2,000 racist vigilantes in Wilmington NC in 1898 who took over the city government, burned black businesses, and lynched black men, reset the city's charter? Once they took over the city government were they now "political" and thus subject to "different principles." How about the men in Pol Pot's communist regime in Cambodia who systematically exterminated upwards of 2 million people? Would voicing opposition to their crimes have been "taking sides?" Are not political decisions made by individuals? By virtue of political office, why does Putin get to kill and destroy without receiving a Christian rebuke?

Doesn't silence or aloofness to clearly evil actions in the sphere of politics undercut our witness? How could I say to the refugee woman in Ukraine who has lost her home and loved ones, "I'm sorry for your loss, but I am really in no place to condemn what Putin has rained down upon you. I just don't want to take sides."

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."

I could (and have) with a clear conscience say "I grieve for your loss. The death and destruction perpetrated by Putin and his military is clearly wrong, and the Ukrainian people are victims of Russian military aggression. How can I help?"

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".

I think so as well! This is the Gospel message, and I appreciate that it is what you stand for brother Gary!

[joshuabgood]

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.

I feel GaryK's position is consistent, and perhaps unsurprisingly, I feel my position is consistent.

In the second position it is almost like there are 3 kingdoms. God's Kingdom of Jesus. God's Kingdom of the righteous state. And the evil Kingdom of the mafia.

[Dan Z]

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.

Very helpful Ken...

After quick reflection, I would say...

• 1. Yes, Christianity has embedded within it the mind of Christ, which contains absolute (God-given) morality.
  
  2. Those universal moral truths should be self-evident, and should resonate somewhere within the hearts of humanity, with or without reference to faith.
  
  3. However, history (& Scripture) shows us that sin and rebellion within individuals clouds their ability to fully recognize or live truly moral lives as individuals and societies
  
  4. Part of the role of the Christian is to live and bear witness to this Godly morality, as salt and light in a world struggling with immorality and darkness. This presence, is first evangelistic in that it provides a compelling witness to Christ, but if consistent, it should also have a seasoning and illuminating effect on the world around us - temporally for the greater good.
  
  5. The way of Christ is invitational (non-coercive), and it is built on the assumption that personally transformative morality is ultimately lived out only in the context of lives given to Christ and enlivened by His Spirit. In this sense, the true politics of morality take place in the Kingdom of God, among the fellowship of the redeemed. While Christianity can inform broader society, and speak prophetically to it, it is not concerned with running the secular World.

[Ken]

To follow up on my previous post. This is a very quick rough draft sketch and one could refine it a great deal. But essentially Christians interact with the world and each other in 3 ways:

CHURCH: Within the Christian sphere or kingdom they interact primarily on issues and rites of faith (communion, baptism, church, marriage between Christians, etc.). For some Christians like the Amish, this is largely where faith ends. There is little interest or calling to interact with the outside world except as necessary.

EVANGELISM: This essentially boils down to Christians attempting to move people from the secular sphere or the sphere of other faiths into the Christian sphere.

UNIVERSAL MORALITY and ETHICS: This is the interactions of Christians with the outside world to communicate and implement universal Christian moral values. Helping refugees from war zones who may or may not be Christian. Advocating for peace. Helping feed the poor, heal the sick, and house the homeless. Implementing universal moral laws such as prohibitions on killing, theft, perjury, etc.

I tend to think that Christians should interact with each other and with the "world" on all three levels. First within their own community of faith there are many rules and practices and codes that do not apply to the outside world and from which the outside world is excluded. Like baptism and communion. Second, in terms of evangelism and sharing the message of Jesus which is essentially trying to move people from other spheres into the Christian sphere.

And finally Christians should interact with the world or worldly sphere in the creation and implementation of universal moral and ethical codes of conduct which are the rules and practices around which all society revolves whether Christian, secular, or of any other faith. I don't think Christians should abandon this sphere or assume they have nothing to say to it. And when doing so I think Christian morals and ethics that apply universally should be compelling enough to stand on their own, and Christians should be able to communicate their value and importance on their own merits and not have to rely simply on articles of faith. When engaging with Ukraine, for example, Christians should be able to communicate the importance of seeking peace and peacemaking on their own universal merits and not need to resort to bible verses to make the point. Peace and good will towards all is a good and moral thing on its own merits. We shouldn't need to cite scripture or convert people to Christianity to make the case for peace. Christians should not need to say "you cannot understand the importance of peace unless you accept Jesus into your heart or let the Holy Spirit guide you" for example. Which is kind of what I hear some people saying.

I think where Christianity and other faiths like Islam go wrong is when they seek to take rules or practices that should apply strictly within their own sphere and try to to implement or enforce them universally. Universal required baptism in the middle ages, for example. Or Islamic attempts to enforce Sharia law or dietary codes universally. It can also be problematic when Christians or people of other faiths claim universal moral laws do not apply to them because of their faith. Honor killings in the Muslim world, for example.

And I feel the same way about LGBT rights or abortion or any other place where Christianity and laws interact. If Christians wish to influence laws that affect all citizens, Christian, secular, or of other faiths, then they should communicate why those laws are compelling on universal moral grounds rather than treat them as articles of faith found in scripture. Following this rule, I tend to think it is an easier case to make for restrictions on abortion than for restrictions on LGBT rights, for example.

[GaryK]

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...

This is a helpful in understanding your perspective....but I wonder where the line is where the moral exemption for politics kicks in.

If your child hits another child, I assume you would quickly correct his action as wrong. If you were a teacher in a classroom, and a child cheated on a test, they would certainly hear from you a lesson in morality. I assume you would be willing to condemn as sinful the actions of a murderer or rapist. What about a street gang terrorizing local shopkeepers? Or rioters burning cities and beating individuals? Or mob bosses running an extortion racket? What about the 2,000 racist vigilantes in Wilmington NC in 1898 who took over the city government, burned black businesses, and lynched black men, reset the city's charter? Once they took over the city government were they now "political" and thus subject to "different principles." How about the men in Pol Pot's communist regime in Cambodia who systematically exterminated upwards of 2 million people? Would voicing opposition to their crimes have been "taking sides?" Are not political decisions made by individuals? By virtue of political office, why does Putin get to kill and destroy without receiving a Christian response?

As I've said before, if I had the opportunity to speak with Putin, I would tell him to take a look at the turmoil and fighting taking place in his kingdom. I would tell him that war is the result of the sinful condition of humanity and that war causes much loss of life, human suffering and destruction. I would tell him that God will hold him accountable for any sins he has committed involving this war or any other unrepented of sins in his life. I don't think I would ask him to explain his reason for invading Ukraine because that would be getting into the politics of the war. Just like in any of the other cases you mention above, I would keep it on an individual sin level and explain that if they die in their sins, there is a judgement awaiting them by God, who will reward every man according to their deeds. I'm really doubtful that in the final judgement, the Russian federation or any other political systems will stand before God and receive their just judgments.

Doesn't silence or aloofness to clearly evil actions in the sphere of politics undercut our witness? How could I say to the refugee woman in Ukraine who has lost her home and loved ones, "I'm sorry for your loss, but I am really in no place to condemn what Putin has rained down upon you. I just don't want to take sides."

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."

Id' like to think I could say the first part of this sentence without saying the second part.

First of all I don't think my position is guilty of aloofness or silence nor do I believe it would tell the woman "I'm sorry for your loss, but I am really in no place to condemn what Putin has rained down upon you. I just don't want to take sides."

I think what it would tell her is "I'm so sorry for your loss during this terrible war. Take a look at what is happening to your country. These types of terrible things are a direct result of the fall of mankind back in the Garden of Eden. Consider all of the terrible things that have been done throughout the history of the world and every one of these terrible atrocities can be attributed to the sinful condition of humanity. In the final judgement God will judge all sin with a righteous judgement. But Jesus..."

Would you be willing to tell her that you condemn Russia for the evil it is doing, but that Ukraine has no right to fight back because that too is evil? Even if you leave off the last part, would telling her that Russia is evil for bombing and destroying her country foster more or less hate in her heart toward Russia?

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".

I think so as well! This is the Gospel message, and I appreciate that it is what you stand for brother Gary!

Dan, I really appreciate your input in these conversations and the tone of your posts! This exercise has been very helpful for me to be able to put into words something I have felt in my heart for years, but have never taken the time to flesh it out like we've done here. I'm thankful for all the different perspectives being offered.

[temporal1]

GaryK:
.. there is a judgement awaiting them by God, who will reward every man according to their deeds.
I'm really doubtful that in the final judgement, the Russian federation or any other political systems will stand before God and receive their just judgments.

i see nothing in scriptures to suggest governments (and pathetic political blocs) won’t just vaporize, become imminently irrelevant, lost to time - and not missed!

on earth, we have real time indication of this, esp thru archaeology, we can study lost civilizations, some vast+complex, gone+forgotten! everything we see and enjoy (or hate) today will disappear. one cvilization literally builds on top of the prior.

it’s quite interesting how quickly the God-created natural world reclaims what mankind has built. some ancient building standards far exceeded contemporary standards of planned obsolescence and disposable-everything.

i would be very happy to know you spoke to Putin.
i don’t believe he is beyond redemption. it’s a ultimately matter of the Holy Spirit.

[Dan Z]

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.

I feel GaryK's position is consistent, and perhaps unsurprisingly, I feel my position is consistent.

In the second position it is almost like there are 3 kingdoms. God's Kingdom of Jesus. God's Kingdom of the righteous state. And the evil Kingdom of the mafia.

Oh...I also feel that Gary has a consistent position, and that your view also strikes me as consistent with itself. Frankly, on the right day, in the right context, I could have claimed one or the other perspective as my own instead of where I now stand.

Both of these perspectives solve the tension that historic Anabaptism has always felt as it has taught nonresistance on the one hand, while recognizing the God-ordained police function of the state on the other hand. Gary (and much of the Plain community) solves this tension by emphasizing separation from the affairs of men - leaving the tension and the God-ordained (or God-opposing) actions of Caesar up to Caesar, and the judging up to God. You (and much of the peace-church tradition) solve this tension by framing violence (even supposedly God-ordained violence) as inherently evil and always against the will and way of Jesus.

The problem is internal "consistency" is not the only measure of the validity of a Biblical idea.

More thoughts to come when I have a bit more time...

[Dan Z]

...here are the "more thoughts."

In squaring Christ's teachings on non-resistance(Matthew 5) with Paul's teaching on the government's God-ordained role (Rom 13), it seems to me that anyone who takes scripture seriously comes out at one of three places (oversimplified I'm sure):

• 1) The teachings of Jesus about non-resistance and enemy-love are normative and universally true as God's will for the World even now - thus Paul's teaching about the God-ordained Governmental use of the sword is either misunderstood or overridden by the teachings of Christ.
  
  2) The non-resistant teachings of Christ are normative and true for Kingdom citizens. However, outside of the perfection of Christ, God (temporarily) sanctions the police-function of just coercion to keep order and save lives in a fallen world - until His Kingdom comes in its fullness and Christ's rule of love reigns supreme.
  
  3) The non-resistant and non-violent teachings of Christ in the SOM are personal, aspirational, or for a different age, and are suspended or inapplicable to Christians who are called upon to serve in the God-ordained and just use of the sword.

Anabaptists have historically approached scripture beginning with the centrality of the teachings & example of Christ, followed by a bent toward faith in action, and a commitment to a plain and direct relationship with the instruction of Christ and his Apostles. It's that hermeneutic that leads to the historic Anabaptist position (#2) that takes both teachings at face value, accepting the tension between the sword-less way of Jesus and the sword-bearing way of the state. I have long ago left the Paul-centric position #3 of my Evangelical upbringing, and in my heart I am certainly sympathetic to the consistency and Christocentrism of position #1. However, at this point in my journey, I'm willing to live with the tension in position #2, which applies a plain reading of Scripture (both Christ and Paul), as opposed to taking the hermeneutical leap of believing that Christ and his Apostle might be at odds.

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.

[Josh]

the main difference is that I am willing to call "foul" when governments act outside of their ordination

A difficulty here is that then you must build a moral philosophy for what you think governments are and aren't allowed to do. You then become necessarily enmeshed in politics.

[GaryK]

...here are the "more thoughts."

In squaring Christ's teachings on non-resistance(Matthew 5) with Paul's teaching on the government's God-ordained role (Rom 13), it seems to me that anyone who takes scripture seriously comes out generally at one of three places (oversimplified I'm sure):

• 1) The teachings of Jesus about non-resistance and enemy-love are normative and universally true as God's will for the World even now - thus Paul's teaching about the God-ordained Governmental use of the sword is either misunderstood or overridden by the teachings of Christ.
  
  2) The non-resistant teachings of Christ are normative and true for Kingdom citizens. However, outside of the perfection of Christ, God (temporarily) sanctions the police-function of just coercion to keep order and save lives in a fallen world - until His Kingdom comes in its fullness and Christ's rule of love reigns supreme.
  
  3) The non-resistant and non-violent teachings of Christ in the SOM are personal, aspirational, or for a different age, and are suspended or inapplicable to Christians who are called upon to serve in the God-ordained and just use of the sword.

Anabaptists have historically approached scripture beginning with the centrality of the teachings & example of Christ, followed by a bent toward faith in action, and a commitment to a plain and direct relationship with the instruction of Christ and his Apostles. It's that hermeneutic that leads to the historic Anabaptist position (#2) that takes both teachings at face value, accepting the tension between the sword-less way of Jesus and the sword-bearing way of the state. I have long ago left the Paul-centric position #3 of my Evangelical upbringing, and in my heart I am certainly sympathetic to the consistency and Christocentrism of position #1. However, at this point in my journey, I'm willing to live with the tension in position #2, which applies a plain reading of Scripture (both Christ and Paul), as opposed to taking the hermeneutical leap of believing that Christ and his Apostle might be at odds.

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 think we do share the same hermeneutic in #2 and until I got to the part about calling foul, I was thinking "has Dan changed his position?"

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.

I did have a question about what you wrote in #2. How are "The non-resistant teachings of Christ... normative and true for Kingdom citizens, but outside of the perfection of Christ"? I'm suspecting the comma in that sentence was meant to be a period with "But" being the start of the next sentence.