Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 11: An Interlude
November 9th, 2006 | by Scott |This is not officially an entry in the series but is more of a question open for discussion. I’m still wrestling with the correct way to proceed with this series. Right now I’m mired in a study of the historical examples of the efficacy of nonviolence. My goal is to create a readable entry on how it has been tried and proven effective throughout time.
However, one of the things that has been borne out for me, both in our discussions here and on the landscape of American society is what our obligation is to preserve Christianity, or at least our understanding of what it should be.
My question is this: how concerned must we be with our rights as Christians in our society? Is one of our fundamental responsibilities as God-followers to preserve liberty, freedom to worship and societal morality?
If so, if we are to be tireless campaigners for moral legislation, then why didn’t Jesus and the early disciples do just that? Why didn’t they migrate to Rome and rail against the moral bankruptcy of THAT great world power? Why are the writings of Paul addressed to churches and individuals and not to influential leaders that could have shaped a more conciliatory relationship between the state and the church?
The early church grew from a smattering of somewhat confused disciples to the greatest movement the world has ever seen. And they did it without political involvement, without violence, without campaigning and an unwavering belief that there movement would somehow collapse if Rome wasn’t transformed. They disregarded restrictive laws against their message and continued on despite the consequences. They were more concerned with perpetuation than preservation?
Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the moral climate of America is not important. Of course it is. My question is how important is it? If American outlawed Christianity tomorrow (an outlandish proposition, for we have yet to experience any true persecution in this country) would Christianity be thwarted? Or would we find out, as history attests, that Christianity flourishes as a minority? That it has its greatest successes under extreme persecution? And wouldn’t we be better served by understanding that it is in the way we live that truly matters more than the referendums and initiatives we support?
Where do our concerns and interest need to lie primarily? In defending “our way of life” or in living as a body of believers undeterred by the fallen powers of this world? Are we called to stand for righteousness or stoop and serve in a broken world?
Do we need to be more concerned about our rights or the rights of the lost? What is our objective?
Again, don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying its wrong to be interested in our moral climate. I’m just wondering how crucial that is to the propagation of Christianity. I don’t have a defined answer here and am legitimately asking for a (civil) discussion.
What is our mission: the preservation and protection of our rights or the tireless pursuit of holiness even to the sacrifice of our rights?
76 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 11: An Interlude”
By justin on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Our mission is to be Jesus. Its that simple. He dined with tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, etc. He loved people regardless of their situation and he never used force to make anyone do right. Not with the adulterous woman, not with zaccheus, not with the pharisees, and not with the rich young ruler. And its interesting to note that Jesus only ever talked about hell with one of those groups of people (hint, its the ones we look the most like)
If we spent as much energy on being the Kingdom rather than legislating a kingdom (notice the lower case there) then maybe we’d begin to see that what Jesus showed us works and is righteous.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Justin, I think you are right on. It is that simple.
But, it’s not easy.
Other thoughts?
By jasonk on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I really wish it were that simple. Scott, the issues you bring up are extremely complex. Yes, our first duty is to the Kingdom of God. The cross waves higher than the flag. At the same time, this nation is a gift from God, and one that we have a stewardship over. We are called to submit to the authority of our government. That complicates things, because if we believe that our nation is a gift, and if we are called by God to submit to its authority, at what point do we stop and say, “I will not submit to that, because to do so would violate a different scriptural principle.”
I really appreciate you giving us something to gnaw on this afternoon. Thanks Scott.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
SCOTT, I FEEL I HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON SOMETHING THAT TROUBLES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING. I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AS CHRISTIANS ABOUT ISLAM AND THE MUSLIMS.THEIR KORAN TELLS THEM THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM.TODAY THERE ARE MORE THAN 6 MILLION NOW IN THE US AND OVER 2000 MOSQUE. SURAH 9:29 STATES “FIGHT THOSE WHO BELIEVE NOT IN ALLAH NOR THE LAST DAY. THEY TEACH JESUS’APOSTLES BECAME MUSLIMS. THEIR INTENT IS TO DESTROY CHRISTIANS AND IF YOU REALLY READ THE KORAN THIS IS MOST EVIDENT.
By Jonathan on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Oh boy.
Doug,
You quote stats about muslims in the U.S.? What percentage of those advocate the destruction of Christians. Zero.
How hard would it be to cherry-pick verses from the Bible (or events from history…crusades and “Christian nations” references crusades as they bomb muslims) to “prove” that Jews or Christians are intent on destroying muslims? Not hard.
I’m not saying the world doesn’t have a significant problem with militant Islamists, but we don’t here.
By Jonathan on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I don’t mean to nit-pick as I appreciate the issues you are raising, but what are criteria for naming Christianity the “greatest movement the world has ever seen”? Number of adherents? I don’t think it would be too hard to argue that some “political involvement”, over the millenia, has contributed to growth in the number of Christian adherents even if the first disciples weren’t involved politically.
Also, has my home IP address been caught in some sort of WordPress spam net? Both last night and today at lunch I was unable to comment from home (comment submission results in a reload of the page but the comment doesn’t appear), but this morning and this afternoon I have successfully submitted comments (like this one) from elsewhere.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jason, in many ways I agree with you. My response to Justin was that it is simple: be like Christ. But that is not easy to always discern what that is. Simple, but not easy.
Based on my understanding of the early church they resisted the government when it came to telling them that they could not speak or that their way of living should be curtailed. They did not seek to make the state Christian. It was not a part of their mission.
By justin on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Doug,
Regarding islamists that want to destroy us, do you believe their hearts can be changed?
The Romans used to put Christians with Lions. That seems pretty hostile to Christianity, yet they didn’t form an army (even though God was on their side) to take out the evil Pagans.
Should that mean anything to us?
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Dad, I never mentioned Islam. But, I agree. We do have to do something: love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
By justin on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Maybe they loved the Romans so much that they would rather be eaten by a lion than kill someone to defend themselves…
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Scott - I tend to agree with JasonK here. If we lived under a totalitarian regime, it wouldn’t be on our radar screen (this explains Jesus’ and Paul’s attitude). But because we live under a representative government, there is, it seems to me, an ethical obligation to participate in policy-making through that system. As such, we should vote our conscience. In as much as like-minded people make up the constituency, this will drive public policy.
On the other hand, becoming a political entity - mobilizing the church as a movement to affect public policy - seems like a distortion of both the church’s mission and the political system we live in.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, I meant that the growth that the early church exhibited in those early days was unprecedented. Without the benefit of any technology this nascent movement progressed virally–to the point where it says in Acts 19 that ALL of Asia heard the message. That’s pretty incredible.
On the comment thing: you are getting caught up in my spam filter. I think it does it automatically if more than two links are provided. As for the one last night, there was something that triggered it. I don’t always understand why, but it does.
By justin on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
The problem with that is Jeff, that if we vote like minded people (Christians) and then they in turn have to do non christian things (blow people up) how does that reflect on our savior.
Hail David Lipscomb!
J/K
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I agree that we should vote our conscience. In no way do I advocate non-participation. I’m just curious how important preserving our way of life is in the grand scheme of things.
I hear a lot from Christians today about “standing up” and not enough about “laying down.”
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
And I don’t think that the reason they went about things the way they did in the first century was because Rome was totalitarian. I think that misses the point of what Kingdom Jesus was establishing.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
If our ability to act and decide is dependent on fully understanding the ultimate chain of causation of our actions, we could not do anything at all. And even doing nothing would be unacceptable since that, too, has a chain of causation beyond our control or kin. This seems to be a non-sensical position.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
I think you missed my point re:Jesus and Paul. They did advocate political action - in their case, submission - appropriate to the political processes of the time/region.
The processes of our time/region are different, therefore submission looks different. Submission (”rendering to Caesar”) in our day requires voting, for example.
I realize the point you are trying to make (I think) is that we (Christians - especially fundamentalists and evangelicals) need to quit worrying about the macroscopic and focus on the personal - on what’s right in front us - leaving who will be raised to power and who will be brought low to God.
And that was what my final paragraph was attempting to say: we aren’t responsible for creating sweeping changes in who rules nations and who is cast down; that is God’s provence.
We have a personal responsibility to vote our conscience as part of living a kingdom-kind-of-life, but leave to God’s sovereign power who is raised up and who is brought low.
Of course, there is an argument to be made that mobilization, coordination, and aggregation are part of our political process and the church’s participation in that is part of our submission to the government we are biblically called to live out. I just don’t find that argument compelling.
Can’t remember where I read/heard it, but the idea that our Christlikeness can be measured by the degree to which we focus on the individual rather than the group hold a lot of sway with me.
By greg on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I hear a lot from Christians today about “standing up” and not enough about “laying down.”
That’s because they are trying to avoid the “laying down” part. I think fear is at least part of the problem - fear of real persecution and what that might mean. The U.S. has always been safe for Christians, and I think it’s created a “safe” Christianity, so to speak. If that is threatened, people want to “stand up” and put a stop to it. Otherwise, living as a Christian may require risk that some are unwilling to accept.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Gotcha, I did miss your point. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that we don’t sequester ourselves. Although we are not of the world, we are still in it and must participate.
I think the genesis for much of my thoughts (and you are right on in the point I’m trying to make) was a discussion I had with a lady on another blog a few months back.
She was dogmatic about the fact that Christianity needs America. That the US is the avenue through which God works. And if we don’t use all of our resources to ensure that America reflects downhome Christian values then our way of life will be lost forever.
I just can’t see how that squares with the first century church and, more importantly, the person of Christ.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Greg–great point.
By len on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
The first thing that popped into my mind when I read this blog was that Paul was quick to use being a Roman citizen to his advantage. I don’t believe he would advocate the laying down of our privileges as Americans if we could use it to advance the Gospel. That is totally different, imo, from trying to force a theocracy on people. It seems to me that Paul had no problem with a variety of religions being proclaimed, because he knew that the singular Truth of Christianity could stand up against all comers.
Paul also was able to speak to influential political people. Perhaps if we lived like he did we could have a greater influence on politics.
Paul taught 2 great actions towards the government. The first Jeff mentioned: submission. I pay taxes to a government that I disagree with on many issues. But it is the biblical action. The second is prayer. We are told to pray for kings and those in authorities. We are really dropping the ball here. 10 years ago there were very few “right-wingers” praying for President Clinton. And I sure to do here a lot of venom towards President Bush coming from many Christian mouths today.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Len, great thoughts. Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship is one of the best arguments against completely wiping our hands of fallen power structures. We can’t use it only when its to our advantage and remain detached the rest of the time.
I think many do want a theocracy, and that’s troublesome. It didn’t work with Israel, there’s no reason to think it could work today.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Great points, Len.
The challenge, it seems to me, that develops in any life situation where we have power to act and see something taking place which we believe to be wrong (this could be an innocent person being attacked in front of us or the legalization of infanticide), is in determining where the line is between acting on a moral imperative (defending the defenseless) and exceeding our rightful dominion (use of force? use of excessive force? legislating a particular religious value? etc.).
By greg on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I think more of them actually want a ‘me-ocracy’. Their “rights” are of greatest importance above all others.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Ah, but there’s the rub: how do we as Christians establish dominion when we are called to humility and service. I believe that is the key.
What if, rather than hitching our wagons to overturning Roe V. Wade the church promises that all unwanted babies will be turned away. What if, instead of decrying gay marriage, we strive to be models of heterosexual commitment in our marriage relationships?
What if, through lifting Him up through our humble acts of service, He draws all men to himself.
“me-ocracy” that’s funny. But, too true.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Ah, but there’s the rub: how do we as Christians establish dominion when we are called to humility and service. I believe that is the key.
Rightful dominion is humility. God has given us rights of dominion over certain things as individual persons of free will. It is only when we fail to exercise proper decision-making where we have rightful dominion or where we attempt to make decisions where do not have rightful dominion, that we are behaving sinfully through apathy or pride - and both based on fear.
Scott - It seems like what you’re getting at is the organized and public nature of right-wing, American evangelicalism’s political activity and whether such activity is either (a) appropriate, or (b) ultimately effective/necessary.
To that I can only say, see my earlier posts.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
As a caution, don’t confuse humility with timidity or powerlessness. It is neither.
Simply put, humility is honesty. Seeing ourselves as we are; seeing others as they are; seeing our place and position as they are. This is dominion rightfully understood.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Great distinction about humility. But I would not just reduce it to the right-wing of American evangelicalism. I run the same risk on the leftist side of the evangelical spectrum of doing the exact same thing.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Just based that on the examples you gave…
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, are you saying I stacked the deck?
By Len on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I partially agree with what you are saying in post 25. For example, I think laws of “no-fault” divorce are far more damaging to the sanctity of marriage than any homosexual unions could ever be. The first step must be our own commitment to marriage.
Where I disagree (and I may be reading into this) is that you sound as though the law has no purpose. You seem to criticize those who want to change abortion laws. But have you not endorsed a group whose purpose is to preserve the environment? Do they not do this in part by enacting laws which aid the environment? Do you believe that enacting proper laws will help the environment or should we just make it all on a personal level regardless of what laws those evil Republican oil-lovers keep from passing?
Tonight I am going to our local Hope Pregnancy Center banquet. THis is our community’s local ministry which fights abortion in many ways: providing health care for those who cannot afford it, helping find adoptive parents, financial help, and a myriad of other social services. It is funded by local churches all of whom oppose Roe V. Wade. The main focus of our HPC is to fight abortion and promote life on the individual and local level. The primary goal is to help the person. But we also want to see law changed to aid that cause.
By Jeff on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I still think the discussion is the degree to which the church sees as part of its missions political activism and legislative reform.
Participating as individuals, voting our consciences, etc. are all proper and necessary for us as disciples in this society. The question, I think, is whether the organized church has a role in the political process or has as one of its primary missions the general reform of the unbelieving society around us through political/legislative action.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, you questioned my statistics on muslim data. Where do you get your information that there is not one Muslim in this country that would do a christian harm? Where were they on 9/11?
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Len, what Jeff said. I’ve said several times that I’m not advocating doing nothing. I voted and I voted my conscience. That’s all well and good.
Ultimately, what I am saying is that our “rights” must be subservient to our mission.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
I guess ultimately what I am trying to say is that there appears to me to be a conflation of the Christian mission with nationalism. Our purpose as children of God cannot be controlled, dictated or defeated by anything that goes on here.
I know that’s nothing new, but Christianity marches on regardless of what happens in federal elections.
Our overarching purpose and example is much more organic than even the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Yes, those things are good and have their place but they won’t led us into the margins where the people are.
By George Freeman on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Here I go…Guess I will be banned again!
First, turn off the caps Dad…it reminds me of how you yelled at me as a kid! Just kidding.
Second, I don’t know who Jonathan is but he best be a bit more respectful in his replies. If not I will be forced to shove his version of whatever into where ever.
Third, help this troubled soul remember where it tells me I am to be “Christ” like. I don’t have a clue about what that means. What was “Christ” like? Seems to me everyone has an opinion but I am having difficulty in grasping the notion.
I have struggled with this :Christ-like” theology my entire life growing up in the C of C. Folks say you have to believe this, you can’t do that and you are damned if you don’t believe exactly this way.
Scott, your discussion on the topice of pacifism has been good for me. I respect your honest approach to the question. I don’t always agree but reading some of the responses helps me remember my theological beginnings. And I will admit a propensity for irritating people in my replies. My thoughts and opinions are fluid…translated that means I do not agree with myself from one day to the next.
In fact, my greatest concern is for people who agree with themselves over an extended time. That is what creates Baal.
I have a great deal of respect for my Dad. As I grow older I am finding myself more and more respectful of his opinion and I am seeking the peace he has in his life. Doug is a great person and I only wish to be more like him.
A lot of your series in the final analysis boils down to a love for country and how to defend it. We all agree that war is distasteful at best but I will be the biggest fan of war if it protects and defends my country.
So I go back to my question…”What does “Christ-like” mean?
I can quickly go into other issues pertaining to manuscripts and the such. My audience quickly questions “faith” and there we go…
I apologize for this bit of a rambling response. Opportunities for discussion around issues such as there are limited in my life. I am not an eloquent wordsmith. Thus, my writings are so inadequate to express my thoughts.
Please continue thise series.
By Jonathan on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Guess I better keep a guard on my where ever.
Doug,
I’m not questioning your stats on muslims. I don’t doubt that there are that many muslims and mosques in the U.S.
When I answered my own question about what percentage of muslims in the US want to destroy Christians, I debated for a millisecond whether I should answer zero percent or 0.00001 % and decided to answer zero because neither is a significant threat to a country of 300 million people with GDP of $12 trillion.
My primary objection to your comment is that it implies that the growing numbers of muslims and mosques in the U.S. are evidence of a growing danger to our country. I don’t agree. Of course the threat isn’t acutally zero. There are mentally deranged people who are a danger to others in all population groups, both muslims and Christians included.
I don’t have any muslim friends (I do have several who are Hindu), but if I did I would object to you stereotyping my friends as a threat to our country. Why shouldn’t object to you sterotyping my fellow US citizens as a threat?
Christian extremist terrorism
By jasonk on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
No fault divorce is more damaging to the sanctity of marriage than civil unions between homosexuals? Do you seriously believe that Len?
By justin on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
I believe that Jason. Especially if you’re talking civil unions and not “marriage”. I just want them to have some sort of rights to be able to visit their sick partner in the hospital, or to be able to get joint insurance coverage with a partner. Or how about common law marriages? We allow unmarried heterosexuals to have benefits, but not unmarried homosexuals. Discrimination anyone?
By jasonk on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Heterosexual couples are not allowed to have benefits, unless they have displayed for a number of years that they are living as husband and wife. Some states allow a couple to simply declare themselves to be married without a ceremony. Common law marriage is not as simple as that.
To allow marriage or civil unions between people of the same gender is a mockery to marriage. If a person decides that they want to live a homosexual lifestyle, fine. But do not ask the state to legitimize their relationship by declaring them married.
Is homosexuality a sin? If you say that it is, and you advocate same sex marriage, then you are, as a citizen of the state, providing an avenue for unrepentent people to revel in their sin.
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
How are Muslim’s in America not a threat. Oh wait that’s right some other jihadist lived in Flordia took flight classes and flew that plane into the tower. Sorry forgot about that…
By Jonathan on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Jon,
I guess I’m doing a poor job of communicating…
Yes, jihadists are a threat. Jihadists living in the U.S. were (we now know in retrospect) a a significant threat before 9/11. They remain a threat now, but it is apparently a small one since in the last five years (assuming any jihadists remain in the U.S.) they have failed to do anything at all.
My point, which I’ll now try to explain again, is that jihadists/Islamists are a minority of Muslims (a tiny or effectively non-existent minority in the US). It is unfair, bigoted, and counter-productive to lump all Muslims in the U.S. into the category of suspicion and threat that jihadists deserve…in the same way that it would be unfair, bigoted, and counter-productive to lump all Christians in the U.S. into the same category of danger that includes racist white-supremacist “Christians”, the Olympic-park bomber Eric Rudolph associated with the Christian Identity movement, the militant Christian terrorists in Northern Ireland, etc.
Lumping the 2 to 7 million Muslims living in the U.S. into the threat category harms the vast, vast majority of them who are no threat and does not help us identify the tiny, tiny minority who are.
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
If they lived here once and did what they did what is to stop them from doing it again is all I am saying. Time has passed and we have started down the road to being numb. So I guess I’ll just be a bigot next time I fly and feel a little tense when a person who looks arab gets on the plane just the same when my son is old enough to go to a restroom alone in a restaraunt I will go and check on him to make sure the guy that seemed suspicious to me didn’t go in there too.
How can you discreminate against a homosexual couple if they aren’t recognized by the system. You want the benefits you need to play by the rules.
By jasonk on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
85% of the world’s Muslims do not hold to a literal interpretation of the Koran. Only 15% interpret it literally, and the majority of them live in two countries in the world. Yep, you guessed it. Iran, and Iraq.
The difference is that most Muslims believe there are five pillars to the faith–the commitment to the oneness of God, prayer, giving to charity, fasting, and a pilgrimmage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. These Muslims interpret jihad to mean fulfilling these five things with all out devotion. The minority of Muslims, the ones flying planes into buildings, believe there is a sixth pillar, which is jihad, or a call to wage war on infidels. They are the minority, and as has been pointed out, and most do not reside in the US.
There is, however, a problem with a lingering prejudice among many Muslims against Jewish people. That is an issue, especially in light of the fact that on Tuesday, the citizens of Minnesota elected a Muslim to Congress. I do not know his feelings on Jews, but it would be worth asking the next time a Muslim runs for office.
By Jonathan on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Yes, I agree that it is natural, given what we’ve been through in the last five years, to feel nervous to get on an airplane with someone who looks Arab (but may or may not be) and so might be Muslim (but may or may not be) and so might be a jihadsit (but may or may not be). I expect that I would feel the same emotion. That doesn’t make it right or rational.
Reality is that any of the other people getting on the plane with you, who don’t look “suspicious” at all, could be a jihadist, could be Eric Rudolph, could be Timothy McVeigh.
I’m not saying I don’t expect you to feel nervous. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t fear jihadists.
I am saying that the growing number of Muslims and mosques in the U.S. is not evidence of a growing danger from jihadists/Islamists. I am saying that we shouldn’t exaggerate the danger of jihadists in the U.S. and use the hysteria to slander millions of honorable, law-abiding, U.S. citizens.
About benefits and playing by the rules…the issue is making sure that the rules are fair, not whether the rules should be played by.
By Scott on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Dude.
All right, good discussion. I know these are volatile discussions and for the most we are remaining civil. Let’s keep that up.
George, you have never been banned from my blog, nor has anyone else.
I guess a word about my blog is in order: there are, essentially, two filters on the comment forms. One is the moderation filter that wordpress employs. There are a long list of words that are “flagged.” Those are based on oft-used spam words. If you use one of those words, or if you provide more than two links in a comment, then wordpress will automatically hold your comment up for moderation. I get an email and I approve it.
The other filter is a spam filter. It catches the vast majority of comments that are sent touting pharmaceuticals, porn sites and other things. Occasionally, for reasons unknown to me, a legitimate comment will get hung up there. I think I’ve retrieved them all but I can’t be sure.
I don’t moderate comments. I don’t blacklist people. So, if a comment doesn’t get through, check back. It should be there when I catch it. If not, let me know and I’ll go trolling for it.
By Scott on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
I also think that I need to go back and try to clarify this earlier post. I vote. I want my rights to protected. I will stand up for what I believe is proper and right for the society in which I live.
But my ultimate concern is the Kingdom. Legislation will not win people’s hearts. What I do in the streets where the people are is what truly matters. Enforcing our taboos on others is not what the early church was about. It was about sharing the message of the crucified Christ regardless of the consequences.
The government can pass any law it wants. However, our fundamental mission to go and make disciples will remain unchanged. What we do, as Christians, need not be contingent upon the nation-state. Our role is a kingdom one, therefore it transcends this world. If gay marriage is made legal, then we still must seek ways to reach their hearts. If the jihadists strike again, then we still must seek ways to be the image of Christ.
Our mission is not contingent upon the moral or political climate of America. If it were, then only Americans could be true Christians.
So, I will vote. I will be active in the political process. I will vote my conscience and values and I will campaign for what I feel is the best way, not just for myself but for all people.
But I will keep it in perspective.
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
We get so concerned about what to government is doing we forget that the world is changed one person at a time. that is the way the gospel is spread.
By jasonk on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Thanks for the clarification on how comments are posted to your site. I appreciate that. I have only had one comment that did not get through, and I wanted to apologize for it. I felt it was an important point to make regarding the new Senator from Virginia, but it didn’t make it through because the nature of it was inappropriate.
But in the realm of stupid political quotes from this season’s campaign, I still would rank it near the top, so perhaps this cleaned up version would be appropriate. If not, it will not hurt my feelings if you remove it.
“A boy’s __________ in his father’s mouth is not $exual.”
–James Webb, Senator-elect from the state of Virginia.
By Scott on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Jason, sorry I missed that first time around. I’ll be anxious to hear if there are other comments I’ve missed along the way.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Jon, I think you and I are on the same wave length.
Scott, it is not a matter if the Jihadist strike again, they will. I believe in prevention.
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
prevention is the best protection
By Scott on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
I thought abstinence was.
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
doh!
By Jonathan on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Prevention. A good goal. Let’s just make sure that the preventative steps we take are comensurate with the threat, actually help prevent the threat, and that the medicine isn’t worse for us than the disease. To extend the illness/medicine metaphor, that we don’t poison the whole body trying to eradicate every last little bit of potential disease.
You might not buy the following perspective, but I think it’s a perspective that we should at least consider: From an article in The Week, September 15, 2006:
By Jon on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
“…we’ve essentially won the war.” Did I miss the surrender parade? This guys mentallity is why we got attacked in the first place. The “it’s okay, we’re okay, it won’t happend anymore/could never happen to us” horse hockey that let them think they could/did use planes. If it happend once it could happen again, but then I don’t wanted to come across as bigoted, I mean look at the brits, they were profiling and caught those arabs who were planning another major attack, stupid bigots.
By Scott on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
I don’t want to speak for Jonathan but I think there is validity to what he is saying, which is not that there is no need for action.
But we need to make sure that we don’t swing so far to an extreme that all people of middle eastern descent are presumed guilty of harboring hatred and/or complicit in terrorist plots.
By Jonathan on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Thanks for the words of agreement/support.
Jon,
I’m not opposed to profiling as a law enforcement tool. I agree that it serves a useful purpose. I am opposed to hundreds of thousands (or millions) of Muslim citizens of the United States (most of whom are honorable and law-abiding) being characterized wholesale as a serious threat to our country.
And thanks for all of the sarcasm. If on occasion you see even the smallest nugget of truth or possible validity in something I say, perhaps you could pepper in some slight acknowlegments of that into your responses. IMO, that would help this seem more like a useful conversation instead of something less pleasant.
Back to guarding my where ever.
By Jeff on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Jonathon - You are cracking me up! Nothing like pearls before swine, is there?
By Jeff on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
We can eliminate all threats the way China does - look - no violent crime, no terrorism, no pesky media questions, no problems! Totalitarianism rules!
This is not a difficult concept, folks. Freedom by its nature entails risk. Balancing the scale between security and freedom is very difficult and requires constant reevaluation as the situation changes. The problem is that government always errs on the side of more security and less freedom - and that once freedom is taken away, it is rarely if ever returned, so the folks advising us to be cautious in surrending our rights in order to feel safer are offering prudent advice.
By Jonathan on Nov 10, 2006 | Reply
Me complaining about sarcasm with a statement absolutely dripping with sarcasm will definitely go on my greatest hits anthology.
By len on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
This has nothing at all to do with anything in this discussion. I just wanted to say that I am a Razorback fan who lives in Tennessee. Today is a lovely, wonderful, incredible day! Go HAWGS!!!!!!!
By Scott Freeman on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
We’ve never been able to say we have the best football team in the SEC–until now.
At least for a week.
Go Hogs.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
Nothing like turning Rockytop into rockyflop.
By greg on Nov 12, 2006 | Reply
I kind of wish I was back in Huntsville for this season. The tri-fecta - Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee - man, that would have been fun… thank God for email.
We take out MSU as we should easily, and I think we beat Florida for the championship. I just think we’re better than Florida. Especially lately. And, as I’ve said all year, Auburn is OVERRATED. That was even more embarrassing than the Arkansas loss…
BCS #7… I thought maybe next year, but this is a nice surprise.
By KS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Gators are going to ruin the Arkansas dream I hate to say.
By KS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
If LSU doesn’t do it first.
By greg on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, the dream is the SEC championship. LSU can’t ruin that unless we lose to MSU. I don’t see that happening. I think Ark-Fla will be a good game. I do think Ark can beat them, but, of course, I’m biased
As for national titles, I don’t think - even Ark wins out - that they’ll get there. They’ll need a good amount of help. But if they make the BCS title game a rematch of OSU-Michigan, I’ll throw up.
By greg on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
“I hate to say”
Kenny, you’re a gator fan - you don’t hate to say that at all.
By Scott on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Of course, I want to win out. And I’d love to have the bad taste of our three trips to the championship game washed out.
The SEC championship game has not been a good place for us to be.
After the butt-kicking we gave the vols a feel better about our team than I have in a long time.
By KS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
I am a Gator fan, but I also have enjoyed watching the hogs do well (I did live in AR for several years).
If they win out, they have a very real chance of playing in the BCS (only need for USC to lose one game)
By Jonathan on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
As a Vols fan, I must give props to the Razorbacks. You guys looked good.
On the 5 hour plan ride from MI to CA last night, I partially made good on my vow to get caught up on reading the non-violence series. Clearly I underestimated the time it would take. I only made it up to about 1/5 of the comments on the third post, but that was partly because at that point I started over so that I could suss out which points and comments I want to extract to use as the basis of the Sunday school class that I suddenly had the strong urge to put together. And I had to quit reading for the last hour of the flight because it was all I could do to keep from tossing my cookies due to the turbulence of the flight. I don’t usually have those kinds of problems, so I’m not sure what was going on there. A few observations (I’ll add more later as I get through, some probably in the relevant posts):
There’s a whole lotta suss-in going on. I must have led a sheltered life, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard this phrase “suss out” in the first 34 years of my life, and now I see it popping up left and right in the blogosphere. Any explanations of it’s origins would be appreciated.
Even though I only made it through 2.2 posts, I got a kick out of how often the things that I brought up in my recent comments had already been raised by Kenny. It’s especially funny because (no offense to Kenny…I appreciate his blog presence…as Scott pointed out re:Scott/Kenny, Kenny and I probably have a huge overlap of common beliefs and faith) my superficial expectation from reading Kenny’s blog and the general points of view of he and his blog friends have would have been not to expect that much agreement between the two of us. Go figure.
As I read through parts 1, 2, and beginning of 3 (and based on my engagement in discussion on some of the more recent parts) I started thinking:
a) There’s much consternation about some people’s tendency to jump to the scenario and focus on theoretical cases where Jesus’ way might not seem to be relevant and to dismiss that tendency as a non-starter
b) There are many confessions paraphrased “I don’t know what I’d do in situation xyz. I’d probably do xyz, but that doesn’t make it right. I’d have to rely on God’s grace to cover my imperfection.”
Then in part 3, Scott explicitly called out what I was thinking when he said: “I’m still waiting for someone to ask the question about how we do what Jesus told us to do.”
Maybe this has been covered in the parts I haven’t made it to yet or is planned for later, but I would really like to see Scott, Justin, and all of us at some point take a wide variety of realistic scenarios that one might encounter and try to specify what a best-effort non-violent response would be. I appreciate the the honesty expressed in statements like item b) above, but I think it’s a little bit of a cop-out to just:
- reject the scenario as a non-starter, to say we should do what Jesus would have done while keeping it in the abstract
- to say that there are probably non-violent solutions to most every problem
- to admit you don’t know what you’d actually do in real life
but not to take the opportunity to really try to specify in realistic, practical terms what some viable non-violent options would be in realistic scenarios. Sure, we don’t know what we would actually do, but we could at least try to come up with some specific options for what a best-effort non-violent response would be.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, I started using the word suss a long time ago. Surprisingly, it’s a word that few people know. I looked it up a about 20 years ago because one of my favorite songs was Rod Stewart’s “You’re In My Heart.” One of the lines is “me and the boys thought we had it sussed” I like the word.
On to your thoughts. I don’t think the scenario is a non-starter in and of itself. I do believe that it is jumping the gun to go straight there as an attempt to discredit the entire discussion, especially when the example of Jesus leans exclusively to nonviolence.
I begin to deal with a little later in the series about practical applications, especially in dealing with self, anger and fear. Working through those issues will help us immensely in dealing with the scenarios that do erupt. I still intend to deal with some more practical suggestions as this goes on.
Part of the problem with this series is differing expectations between myself and those involved in the discussion. I’m writing more or less a book and trying to proceed in an orderly manner. In book form it’s easy to see that some questions that arrive will be addressed in chapter 18 but that’s not true in a blog discussion.
I’ll get there. I promise.
By KS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott: I think that is my problem, I always jump ahead in any book I am reading. I have a problem with theory and no practicallity. I look forward to when we go from part 1 to part 88 (or wherever we end up) and actually start giving real answers.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
But you can’t say there have been no real answers. Maybe there haven’t been the answers to the particular questions you want answered but we have dealt with some of the major causes of violence: fear, anger and self-aggrandizement.
By KS on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
I think we have established that in all cases Chirst would have us look first to the non-violent answer.