tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post1611283664999435703..comments2023-06-09T12:46:12.932-04:00Comments on The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia: Adventures in Logical Malfeasance Arthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-1625059244444901982014-12-29T14:34:19.206-05:002014-12-29T14:34:19.206-05:00(cont.)
"Since I'm a good evangelical li...(cont.)<br /><br />"Since I'm a good evangelical like you, and Doug Wilson, I want to keep the Bible relevant. I want people in evangelical churches to be fruitful in their vocations, and want their souls tended and cared for. I want them to be willing to suffer, and also to see what the end of that suffering is--resurrection, victory, vindication, discipling all the nations."<br /><br />Amen to that but the relevance of the Bible is not determined by how many people in power quote it in campaign speeches and sit in pews on Sunday to show the voters how pious they are. Of course "discipline the nations" means what Christ meant in the Great Commission, not what Constantine meant when he made the cross the symbol of his earthly conquests. <br /><br />Constantinianism is not the way forward for the church, it is what got us into the mess we find ourselves in. We need to reach back to the Scriptures to see how we are to minister as aliens and sojourners, ministering from a position of weakness rather than from a false posture of strength. <br />Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-45135996466443566552014-12-29T14:33:35.206-05:002014-12-29T14:33:35.206-05:00(cont.)
"The danger of this theology of perp...(cont.)<br /><br />"The danger of this theology of perpetual weakness is that when men in government convert, be they policemen, bureaucrats, legislators, governors, and they come to church and they seek guidance for how to live out their Christian vocation--we have nothing to say to them. We have nothing to teach them and grow them in their sanctification. All we can tell them is that they must quit their jobs and be powerless like us."<br /><br />What of an abortionist who comes to faith? What is a guard in a North Korean prison camp comes to faith? What of a member of the Gestapo? Do we have nothing to say to them? Or do we call them to drop their fishing nets and follow Christ? I am not saying and never have said that one cannot be a magistrate and a Christian but I do say that one ought not be a magistrate and also a Christian. Your argument suffers from an Americanized view of the faith and the culture.<br /><br />"Step back and let the gladitorial games continue, let the unborn get slaughtered, let the widows get thrown on funeral pyres, let the slaves continue to be traded. Then we huff and puff about how much more holy and smart we are, not like those yahoos who stand outside abortion clinics, serve on the city council, serve in the military, or police a neighborhood."<br /><br />You present a false dichotomy here, either one is willing to kill for Caesar or one doesn't care for injustice. That is patently untrue. I can and have ministered for the cause of the unborn without trying to get the "right" politician elected or holding a sign outside of an abortion clinic (which is not the same thing as seeking to seize the coercive power of the sword). <br /><br />"This theology tells me that Daniel was wrong, Joseph was wrong, Cornelius was a big sinner--all served in government, and were of high rank. The examples of faithfulness Scripture gives me really aren't faithful, but were for another time, another dispensation, which means all of Scripture really isn't so profitable for instruction in righteousness after all. And a lot of Proverbs start to seem fishy--you know like "When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people groan.""<br /><br />In spite of your decisiveness, it does help to recognize the settings. David was a king of a theocratic empire ordered and administered under God's direction and rule. America is nothing like that and Christ never called for His people to seek to reinstitute a theocracy like national Israel. Joseph was a ruler of a largely unbelieving state, one that turned on the Israelites leading to their enslavement (which should serve as a warning against seeking to merge the Gospel and the government rather than an encouragement to do so). What of Cornelius, the only one of your examples to occur under the New Covenant? What happened to him after Acts 10? Did he continue to serve in the armies of Caesar? We don't know and therein we see the problem of making arguments from silence, just as we see when people use the centurion of Matthew 8 as an excuse for serving in the military rather than turning to the actual, explicit teaching of Christ and the apostles. The Scriptures are absolutely profitable but it helps to read them in context.<br /><br />(cont.)Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-7241172755367206862014-12-29T14:32:28.786-05:002014-12-29T14:32:28.786-05:00Hi Ben
I didn't forget about you, just been b...Hi Ben<br /><br />I didn't forget about you, just been busy. I think there are some serious problems with the statement you made so I want to highlight them individually.<br /><br />"If we insist woodenly that the church must always relate to the social order from a position of weakness/powerlessness, that will work only as long as Christians are outsiders, lunatics, nutjobs and exiles. In short, it will work pretty well for us if the current trends continue."<br /><br />That is kind of what the Bible teaches. We read that when we are weak we are really strong, we read that when we are abused we respond in love, we read that the humblest will be exalted and of course we worship a God who became weak for us and that we are to follow Him, taking up our cross rather than the sword and preach a message that seems weak and foolish to the world. In fact if the world sees us as something other than oddballs and outsiders we are doing something wrong. <br /><br />Of course we also see the practical ramifications of trying to do it the world's way, namely the reality that without exception when the church tries to use the coercive methods of the world conversion certainly occurs but it is not the unregenerate that are converted but the visible Body of Christ and always away from the Word of God.<br /><br />"No sane Christian wants persecution."<br /><br />Of course not but the problem is that we are told to expect it. Jesus warned us so many times that the world will hate us and persecute us but that we should see that as affirmation and even a blessing. <br /><br />"Richard Wurmbrand writes about this in the famous book "Tortured for Christ." He writes that Christians in restricted nations should hope for the conversion of the leaders of those countries, for when the leaders convert, that is the only real way the Gospel can get out to the masses."<br /><br />With all due respect to that brother, that is nonsense. We ought to pray for the conversion of our leaders for certain but the Gospel has always been spreading and rarely have leaders been regenerate believers. The Gospel spread amidst intense persecution in the first century, it spread during the time of the Reformation (both magisterial and radical) in spite of persecution, it spreads even today in places like China. Meanwhile in ostensibly "Christian" nations under allegedly Christian leaders the Gospel has been neutered and the faith perverted. Tertullian is correct in that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church".<br /><br />"Christians are in the business of resurrection. The wicked culture of ancient Rome was brought down by the humble witness of the early church, and when the early church had won, they proceeded to do things--they made things better. They did not insist on the persecution continuing. They didn't meekly step back and say, "Oh no, not us. We're supposed to be perpetually powerless and weak. Constantine, go convert to some other religion, and burn a few more of us at the stake while you're at it.""<br /><br />Even if I grant that Constantine was genuinely converted, something I think is more the stuff of legend than fact, what resulted from his "conversion" was not an improvement. Was the church better off holding to the truth amidst persecution or in spending the next thousand years teaching error and persecuting actual Christians who dared deviate from Romanism? If I am to choose between being faithful to the point of persecution or being comfortable in the midst of damnable error, I will choose the former every time.<br /><br />(cont.)Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-57278390882050213942014-12-18T21:21:47.787-05:002014-12-18T21:21:47.787-05:00Arthur,
If we insist woodenly that the church mus...Arthur,<br /><br />If we insist woodenly that the church must always relate to the social order from a position of weakness/powerlessness, that will work only as long as Christians are outsiders, lunatics, nutjobs and exiles. In short, it will work pretty well for us if the current trends continue.<br /><br />However, I'd rather not see those trends continue. No sane Christian wants persecution. Richard Wurmbrand writes about this in the famous book "Tortured for Christ." He writes that Christians in restricted nations should hope for the conversion of the leaders of those countries, for when the leaders convert, that is the only real way the Gospel can get out to the masses. In other words, we should pray that persecution is a temporary hardship that God will use for greater glory down the road.<br /><br />The Cross was extreme suffering. The Cross was agony. Jesus was powerless. The second part of the story is that God raised Him and vindicated Him. Jesus is now seated at the right hand of the Father. He has been given all power and authority; He is reigning now. That fact is a great comfort to me. The bad guys didn't win. Jesus is alive.<br /><br />Christians are in the business of resurrection. The wicked culture of ancient Rome was brought down by the humble witness of the early church, and when the early church had won, they proceeded to do things--they made things better. They did not insist on the persecution continuing. They didn't meekly step back and say, "Oh no, not us. We're supposed to be perpetually powerless and weak. Constantine, go convert to some other religion, and burn a few more of us at the stake while you're at it."<br /><br />The danger of this theology of perpetual weakness is that when men in government convert, be they policemen, bureaucrats, legislators, governors, and they come to church and they seek guidance for how to live out their Christian vocation--we have nothing to say to them. We have nothing to teach them and grow them in their sanctification. All we can tell them is that they must quit their jobs and be powerless like us. Step back and let the gladitorial games continue, let the unborn get slaughtered, let the widows get thrown on funeral pyres, let the slaves continue to be traded. Then we huff and puff about how much more holy and smart we are, not like those yahoos who stand outside abortion clinics, serve on the city council, serve in the military, or police a neighborhood. <br /><br />This theology tells me that Daniel was wrong, Joseph was wrong, Cornelius was a big sinner--all served in government, and were of high rank. The examples of faithfulness Scripture gives me really aren't faithful, but were for another time, another dispensation, which means all of Scripture really isn't so profitable for instruction in righteousness after all. And a lot of Proverbs start to seem fishy--you know like "When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people groan."<br /><br />Since I'm a good evangelical like you, and Doug Wilson, I want to keep the Bible relevant. I want people in evangelical churches to be fruitful in their vocations, and want their souls tended and cared for. I want them to be willing to suffer, and also to see what the end of that suffering is--resurrection, victory, vindication, discipling all the nations.<br /><br />Grace and Peace,Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-3938086921196325102014-12-18T19:34:28.955-05:002014-12-18T19:34:28.955-05:00Hi Ben
At 26 you haven't really had enough ti...Hi Ben<br /><br />At 26 you haven't really had enough time to have younger years! :) <br /><br />I am coming at this from a different direction, I spent many years in the strict Reformed camp alongside a robust culture warrior credo. What I knew of the Anabaptists came largely from hostile sources in the Reformed camp, places like the White Horse Inn (never missed a broadcast). If you peruse some of my older posts you will find many posts that would be very sympathetic to Wilson-type teaching outside of infant "baptism" which I have always rejected. I came to a far more sympathetic view of the Anabaptists over the last few years while retaining a borderline obnoxious agreement with Calvinstic soteriology. As I have done so and studied the Scriptures, along with observing the Religious Right foolishness and other historical manifestations of church-state yoking I have come to a realization that we have often attempted to co-opt and utilize the means of the world to accomplish the mission of the church. <br /><br />I see the use of the sword to mean more than merely active warfare (although certainly prohibiting that) and extending into all areas of coercive behavior. Trying to use the means of the state and the methods of the world to force men into the behavior expected of the regenerate does nothing to advance the Kingdom. That does not mean laws are unnecessary or that they are even value neutral (see: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-worry-about-things-that-dont-matter.html ). It just means that how the church is called to influence the world is more typically from a stance of weakness and powerlessness rather than a stance of worldly authority and influence. <br /><br />I absolutely agree that distinctives do matter. I often agree with Wilson on matter of theology proper while disagreeing with him on issues like ecclesiology and the proper recipients of baptism. I don't read him for fodder to blog about why he is wrong, as I said I often agree with him. On this issue however I find his argument weak, counter-productive and misguided. Let me also say that I appreciate your reasoned and sober response, a rarity in the internet.<br />Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-40556697052708375552014-12-18T18:40:20.804-05:002014-12-18T18:40:20.804-05:00Hi Arthur,
I understand completely where you'...Hi Arthur,<br /><br />I understand completely where you're coming from on this. In my younger years (not that long ago; I'm only 26) I was something of a raging libertarian with strong Anabaptist leanings. Running into Doug Wilson was, understandably, something of a culture shock. <br /><br />I get why his argument rubs you the wrong way. The Lord deals with us in His time, and it seems to me (though I don't know you personally) that you love Jesus with great evangelical passion and you love the doctrines of Grace. <br /><br />Having said all that to establish some common ground between us, I'd ask that you read Wilson more charitably, as I have tried to read your criticisms charitably. <br /><br />I'll zero in on something in particular in your piece. You accuse Wilson of a glaring inconsistency...that he states (correctly) that the church is not to bear the sword, only the state. Yet at the same time, because Wilson uses the word "theocratic" in a positive sense, you write that this *must* mean that Wilson believes the church and state should be unified.<br /><br />I understand that *for you* "theocracy" means "church and state are mingled together, like in the worst excesses of medieval Roman Catholicism." However, that can't be what Wilson means by the term because Wilson expressly stated that the church may not bear the sword. Wilson's Christian political theory makes a distinction between the Two Kingdoms. The burden of his posts on marriage and divorce is to show that the church cannot be a "replacement polity" of sorts for the civil polity, from which Christians must withdraw, because God defines different roles for both polities. Church and state have different responsibilities. We actually agree on more than you realize.<br /><br />You have to let Wilson's writings define Wilson's terms. That's simply being charitable to him in argument. <br /><br />Since I agree with Wilson on these points, let me re-state what Doug and I both agree on. We don't want to repristinate medieval Romanism. We don't want the Pope leading armies into battle, deposing kings or engaging in international financial chicanery. We believe that one of the great contributions of the Reformation was to de-sacralize the state, make a distinction between the two kingdoms and set men free. At the same time, the visible church and the state are part of Christ's temporal kingdom--Jesus reigns over them in some sense. Morality and goodness are also not value-neutral, but must be defined by someone or something outside of ourselves. The foundations for law and civil order are religious because the Triune God is sovereign over everything (yep, just used some Calvinistic lingo there). He's involved in everything. His Word is comprehensive, leaving no subject untouched. He raises kings up and brings them down. The king is a minister to us for our good, punishing the evildoer. Love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. <br /><br />Finally, Arthur, you appear to have a concern that Christendom has tended to produce lots of nominal believers without true conversion. I agree with your concern and so does Doug, who has been writing much lately on the subject of conversion. Doug agrees with you on the important evangelical distinctives, and he also believes those distinctives should lead us to apply Scripture in all spheres of life, including the civil sphere. He believes that *because* he is an evangelical. It isn't a coincidence that the most formal of the formalists and the most high of the high churchmen tend to be as culturally disengaged and world-denying as the staunchest of Anabaptists.Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.com