Occasionally I hear or read the question, "What would Jesus drive?" as if there were a certain type of car he would drive if he were living in our society today. I think the answer is fairly simple. Jesus said, "Lo, I will be with you, even to the end of the age." He also said he would send us his spirit. He also said that those who did/didn't do things to the least of his were doing it to him. He told Saul of Tarsus that he was persecuting him.
So with all this, and the freedom we have in Christ, plus using wisdom in how we live, wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus would drive whatever any of his followers would drive? Except for an SUV, that is.
Because theology is everybody's task
Showing posts with label Christian Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Liberty. Show all posts
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Secondary Issues
What constitutes a "secondary" issue within Christianity is not a difficult thing to determine. I don't think, anyway. There is constant debate about so-called secondary issues - those issues that are not essential to the Christian faith as far as salvation. Recently I have read a number of things about this, and quite a few people seem to think that secondary issues are made primary depending on who it is doing the deciding, and we'll never come to agreement. So, it's a hopeless topic. But, hey folks, I think it is easier than most people think.
The essentials of the Christian faith are not difficult to identify. The virgin birth, the real and actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Lordship of Christ. The gospel. The second coming, and so on. These things have been held throughout history by the majority of the church, and they continue to be core beliefs. The early creeds are an example. Whether somebody drinks beer or wears certain clothes or allows their daughter to go to college or has a certain form of church government or whether women wear pants or even whether somebody sprinkles or dunks during baptism simply aren't essential doctrines. People make them out to be, and that's the problem. Denying that Jesus came in the flesh is a major problem, but denying that every last Christian child must be homeschooled isn't.
And there's a big difference between having convictions that you un-hypocritically hold to and judging other people based on those convictions. The list of trivial things that are used to judge and condemn people - even to an eternity in hell - doesn't end. Think about it. God is going to cast a professing Christian into the lake of fire on judgment day to spend an eternity in hell because they drank a beer now and then? Because they wear the latest fashions and dress well? God is going to let you into heaven but stick you in a golden corner with a jewel laden dunce cap on because you baptized people the wrong way? Think about what that means. We would be willing to wish the worst on our brothers and sisters because of our personal preferences and pet doctrines? What kind of Christian attitude is that? It's the kind of attitude that Jesus says will condemn the Pharisees.
I'm not claiming innocence on this, as I spent a good amount of time in legalistic churches and groups, and learned how to judge people harshly on secondary issues. But once God shows you the ugliness of it all, it is refreshing to not waste so much energy on condemning others. It's a freeing thing. And that's one of the things that Jesus came for.
The essentials of the Christian faith are not difficult to identify. The virgin birth, the real and actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Lordship of Christ. The gospel. The second coming, and so on. These things have been held throughout history by the majority of the church, and they continue to be core beliefs. The early creeds are an example. Whether somebody drinks beer or wears certain clothes or allows their daughter to go to college or has a certain form of church government or whether women wear pants or even whether somebody sprinkles or dunks during baptism simply aren't essential doctrines. People make them out to be, and that's the problem. Denying that Jesus came in the flesh is a major problem, but denying that every last Christian child must be homeschooled isn't.
And there's a big difference between having convictions that you un-hypocritically hold to and judging other people based on those convictions. The list of trivial things that are used to judge and condemn people - even to an eternity in hell - doesn't end. Think about it. God is going to cast a professing Christian into the lake of fire on judgment day to spend an eternity in hell because they drank a beer now and then? Because they wear the latest fashions and dress well? God is going to let you into heaven but stick you in a golden corner with a jewel laden dunce cap on because you baptized people the wrong way? Think about what that means. We would be willing to wish the worst on our brothers and sisters because of our personal preferences and pet doctrines? What kind of Christian attitude is that? It's the kind of attitude that Jesus says will condemn the Pharisees.
I'm not claiming innocence on this, as I spent a good amount of time in legalistic churches and groups, and learned how to judge people harshly on secondary issues. But once God shows you the ugliness of it all, it is refreshing to not waste so much energy on condemning others. It's a freeing thing. And that's one of the things that Jesus came for.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Secondary Issues
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." - along with other similar statements, often attributed to St. Augustine and having great influence upon John Wesley
I've been thinking a lot lately about secondary issues within the Christian faith, or non-essentials if you will, and how that affects our dividing from one another over such issues. It seems that many of the problems arise because everybody has differing ideas of what the essentials are. Many elevate secondary - or even lesser or microscopic - issues to that of essential issues. Many believe we shouldn't divide over secondary issues, but do anyway. Some are willing to overlook any categorizing of an essential whatsoever and are willing to accept anybody as a Christian.
Some see a solution to all of this in agreeing upon a basic formulation of the faith, such as the apostle's creed. I tend to agree with this last statement. Although holding a different position on a secondary issue or more shouldn't cause one to place that one outside of Christianity, secondary issues are nonetheless important. Does anybody have some ideas on where a line should be drawn between essential and secondary issues?
I've been thinking a lot lately about secondary issues within the Christian faith, or non-essentials if you will, and how that affects our dividing from one another over such issues. It seems that many of the problems arise because everybody has differing ideas of what the essentials are. Many elevate secondary - or even lesser or microscopic - issues to that of essential issues. Many believe we shouldn't divide over secondary issues, but do anyway. Some are willing to overlook any categorizing of an essential whatsoever and are willing to accept anybody as a Christian.
Some see a solution to all of this in agreeing upon a basic formulation of the faith, such as the apostle's creed. I tend to agree with this last statement. Although holding a different position on a secondary issue or more shouldn't cause one to place that one outside of Christianity, secondary issues are nonetheless important. Does anybody have some ideas on where a line should be drawn between essential and secondary issues?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Boundaries That Promote Freedom
"But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does." James 1:25
A number of years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. They were confined and closed in. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together in the center of the playground for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, with its animals and strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was engineered and constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far fewer than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
A number of years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. They were confined and closed in. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together in the center of the playground for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, with its animals and strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was engineered and constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far fewer than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Legalism And Liberty, Pyro Style
Last month, Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs fame wrote a post on legalism and Christian liberty, and said he desired to write on this topic again in the weeks to come. He asked commenters to ask questions they would like answered. So, I chimed in with a couple of questions I would consider not the act of lobbing softballs:
I agree with what you've had to say about legalism and liberty in these two posts. An observation: I've never heard a legalist admit to being a legalist. Legalists always seem to claim their legalism comes directly from Scipture, even if it takes twenty successive logical fallacies within a greater slippery slope fallacy to make their claim. Do you see the same thing?I look forward to hearing Phil's take on legalists, conscience and the weaker brother. If he gets around to this topic, I'll post more.
Also, could you give your view on "offending" the "weaker brother"? Do you think that somebody inducing indignation within their own heart over an activity they see another engaging in constitutes offense, or do you think it has to do with actually inducing somebody into an activity contrary to their conscience? In between?
Oh, and would you see somebody as "weak" because they abstain, or because their conscience hasn't been fully persuaded?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Happy St. Patrick's Day
I'm part Irish, I'm wearing green, my favorite beer is Guinness Stout and I am a Christian. With St. Patrick using the shamrock, according to tradition, to explain the Trinity to the king of Ireland, all these things go together for a good holiday to celebrate. Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Doing What You Desire In The Lord
I was reading a very short post on Pulpit Magazine by John MacArthur about the decision making process of the Christian. He boils it down to three factors. First, if it is prohibited by Scripture, don't do it. Second, you need wisdom. Third, consider your own desires.
In short, if it's okay to do, then do it if you desire. I agree with this, and don't think I hear it enough from conservative leaders that doing what you want, if it's not wrong, is what God uses to advance his kingdom. But in real life there's a catch...
What is prohibited by Scripture or dictated against by wisdom is a great debate within Christianity. Coming to your own conclusions may irk quite a few people and gain their judgment against you. Laundry lists of sins not actually prohibited by the bible make an impact upon people that can be very negative, and liberty is lost.
I've never heard a legalist describe himself as such, have you?
In short, if it's okay to do, then do it if you desire. I agree with this, and don't think I hear it enough from conservative leaders that doing what you want, if it's not wrong, is what God uses to advance his kingdom. But in real life there's a catch...
What is prohibited by Scripture or dictated against by wisdom is a great debate within Christianity. Coming to your own conclusions may irk quite a few people and gain their judgment against you. Laundry lists of sins not actually prohibited by the bible make an impact upon people that can be very negative, and liberty is lost.
I've never heard a legalist describe himself as such, have you?
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Can A Christian Be A Bartender?
Most Christians I know believe that Christians are allowed by the bible to drink alcohol. But can a Christian be a bartender? Own a brewery? A winery? A distillery? Some people who think a Christian can drink tend to shy away from believing these other things. Why?
It's quite okay to go to a bar, order a beer, sit and drink it, play the juke box, but to pour the stuff is questionable. Some might object out of fear that such a person would only be helping people with their vices. But with Christians supposedly holding to higher standards of morality, I would think that these people would rather have Christians in those positions than non-Christians. They would have a larger influence against drunkenness and vice, according to their own theology. Why not be salt and light from behind the bar as opposed to just in the lounge?
It's quite okay to go to a bar, order a beer, sit and drink it, play the juke box, but to pour the stuff is questionable. Some might object out of fear that such a person would only be helping people with their vices. But with Christians supposedly holding to higher standards of morality, I would think that these people would rather have Christians in those positions than non-Christians. They would have a larger influence against drunkenness and vice, according to their own theology. Why not be salt and light from behind the bar as opposed to just in the lounge?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Boundaries and Freedom (2)
In my first post, I noted that boundaries, properly placed, actually promote freedom for man, rather than hinder it. God places boundaries for man that promote the greatest freedom for us. This shouldn't be a surprise, because God knows everything about human nature, and He also knows the entire history and future of the world and everybody in it, so His boundaries are the best ones.
Some boundaries that God gives are absolute. "Thou shalt not commit murder." Others are a bit vague, like, "Do not get drunk with wine." (Ephesians 5:18) What does it mean to get drunk? One drink? Two? Twelve? Any alcohol at all? Boundaries like this require work on our part. They also might require work on other people's part for us. God gives us the responsibility of knowing ourselves well enough to know our own limits. Other people can know these things, too, and hold us to those limits because they love us. If God gives us a boundary, but lets us establish exactly within a range where that boundary goes, then He isn't going to be very harsh in letting us stumble a few times during the process of establishing that boundary.
Jesus said that if our hand causes us to stumble, cut it off, and if our eye causes us to stumble, pluck it out. It's interesting that He's instructing us in this with the understanding that we already know something causes us to stumble. He's not condemning us for having stumbled, but only if we repeat the stumbling with full knowledge of our stumbling. This is merciful. He's not an overly protective mother that doesn't allow her child to learn from his mistakes, but knows that the cuts and bruises of having stumbled will have a greater affect on our growing. Many boundaries that God gives us are to be set by us ourselves; He doesn't have a "one size fits all" set of rules.
Some boundaries that God gives are absolute. "Thou shalt not commit murder." Others are a bit vague, like, "Do not get drunk with wine." (Ephesians 5:18) What does it mean to get drunk? One drink? Two? Twelve? Any alcohol at all? Boundaries like this require work on our part. They also might require work on other people's part for us. God gives us the responsibility of knowing ourselves well enough to know our own limits. Other people can know these things, too, and hold us to those limits because they love us. If God gives us a boundary, but lets us establish exactly within a range where that boundary goes, then He isn't going to be very harsh in letting us stumble a few times during the process of establishing that boundary.
Jesus said that if our hand causes us to stumble, cut it off, and if our eye causes us to stumble, pluck it out. It's interesting that He's instructing us in this with the understanding that we already know something causes us to stumble. He's not condemning us for having stumbled, but only if we repeat the stumbling with full knowledge of our stumbling. This is merciful. He's not an overly protective mother that doesn't allow her child to learn from his mistakes, but knows that the cuts and bruises of having stumbled will have a greater affect on our growing. Many boundaries that God gives us are to be set by us ourselves; He doesn't have a "one size fits all" set of rules.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Boundaries That Promote Freedom
"But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does." James 1:25
A few years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, such as strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far less than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
A few years ago I read a story about a school where the administrators determined that the fence around the playground was too limiting to the children. It was a hindrance to their freedom. So they had the fence removed. To their surprise, the children afterward voluntarily played in a much smaller area than what had originally been allowed by the fence. They suddenly had no boundary and weren't able to figure out how to limit themselves, so they stuck together for the sake of safety. Also, the new arrangement no longer prevented the outside world, such as strangers, from getting in.
The lesson here is that the fence, properly placed, actually promoted freedom for the children. They could play right up to the fence without facing danger. The playground was large enough for them to play in comfortably, and the fence kept them in and strangers out. This is how God's law works. He provides the proper boundaries for us to promote our maximum freedom. Another example of this would be the barrier on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the railing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. People can go right to the edge and even lean against the boundary because the boundary was constructed to allow leaning against it. Now imagine these railings suddenly being removed. How many people would venture to the edge of the top floor and look down? Far less than with a boundary.
An opposite example would be Hal, the super computer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal arranged for Dave, the astronaut, to float out into space in order to take control of things himself. Dave was now free of any and every obligation to family, country, mother-in-law. He was even free from the law of gravity. But he was doomed to death because of his limitless freedom. God's law allows us freedom to live within his creation, but prevents us from killing ourselves.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Christian Liberty
For a long time, whenever I heard the term "Christian liberty" I usually associated it as a reactionary term against the evils of legalism. No drinking, no dancing, no listening to FM radio. "Hey, we have Christian liberty" was the protesting response. Then an explanation came to mind about the positives of what activities we have liberty to engage in. Wine is God's creation that was given to us to enjoy, or defenses of certain genres of music. I don't fault anybody for taking these things on. But where I made a mistake in this thinking, is that Christian liberty is limited to these things; it is a mere reaction to legalism.
But the scope of Christian liberty is much greater. Christ came so that we may have liberty. Liberty is essentially the freedom to do what is good. Yes, it includes drinking a beer or listening to the Beatles (or not!), and giving thanks to God for those things (or for not doing these things), but exercising our liberty to do good - any good - is part of Christian liberty. Buying some land, tilling the ground and feeding people with your produce is part of Christian liberty. Starting a family and training your children in the ways of the Lord is part of Christian liberty. Writing a book, having a career, changing the world with acts of good, inventing something, producing wealth, helping the poor and disadvantaged, advancing God's kingdom. These are all part of liberty. Let us fully engage our liberty upon the world for the cause of Christ.
(p.s. Jason's post inspired my writing of this. I've wanted to write this for a while, so thanks, Jason for the trigger, even though it's not directly related to your post.)
But the scope of Christian liberty is much greater. Christ came so that we may have liberty. Liberty is essentially the freedom to do what is good. Yes, it includes drinking a beer or listening to the Beatles (or not!), and giving thanks to God for those things (or for not doing these things), but exercising our liberty to do good - any good - is part of Christian liberty. Buying some land, tilling the ground and feeding people with your produce is part of Christian liberty. Starting a family and training your children in the ways of the Lord is part of Christian liberty. Writing a book, having a career, changing the world with acts of good, inventing something, producing wealth, helping the poor and disadvantaged, advancing God's kingdom. These are all part of liberty. Let us fully engage our liberty upon the world for the cause of Christ.
(p.s. Jason's post inspired my writing of this. I've wanted to write this for a while, so thanks, Jason for the trigger, even though it's not directly related to your post.)
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Pilgrims Pub
I found a website (by a Christian) that is dedicated to beer. Both its consumption and the doctrine of moderation. It is called Pilgrims Pub. (Hat tip to Abu Daoud). I'm adding it to my links.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Illegal Is a Sick Bird
My dad was a career California Highway Patrol officer. So growing up we had many goofy questions for him regarding driving and the law. "Dad, is it illegal to ___ (fill in the blank)?" His reply was usually, "Illegal is a sick bird," trying to impress upon us a distinction between legality and lawfulness, "do you mean lawful?"
I think I know what he meant, but this distinction needs to be impressed upon American Christians today. Most of the Christian faith has been made "illegal" by politicians, and from my experience, most Christians view "legal" as the same as "lawful," because of their false interpretation of Romans 13. So when good is outlawed, doing good is often not even viewed as good by many people. Just like Jesus and the apostles when they did good but were roundly condemned by legalists for disobeying false authorities.
I think I know what he meant, but this distinction needs to be impressed upon American Christians today. Most of the Christian faith has been made "illegal" by politicians, and from my experience, most Christians view "legal" as the same as "lawful," because of their false interpretation of Romans 13. So when good is outlawed, doing good is often not even viewed as good by many people. Just like Jesus and the apostles when they did good but were roundly condemned by legalists for disobeying false authorities.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Happy St. Patrick's Day
I'm part Irish, I'm wearing green, my favorite beer is Guinness Stout and I am a Christian. With St. Patrick using the shamrock, according to tradition, to explain the Trinity to the king of Ireland, all these things go together for a good holiday to celebrate. Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Friday, March 09, 2007
John MacArthur's Wine List
I came across a written outline of a sermon John MacArthur preached a number of years ago about alcohol in the life of the Christian. I heard this sermon on his radio program. In this sermon, he asks eight questions of his listeners in order for them to examine their own lives in light of the bible's teachings about alcohol. I've decided to answer these questions here.
Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?
I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.
Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?
No, but it sure can be a blessing.
Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?
No, beer is.
Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?
It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.
Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?
Yes, but so is reading the bible.
Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?
I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.
Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?
No, actually it has helped it fairly well.
Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?
Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!
Any more questions?
Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?
I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.
Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?
No, but it sure can be a blessing.
Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?
No, beer is.
Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?
It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.
Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?
Yes, but so is reading the bible.
Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?
I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.
Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?
No, actually it has helped it fairly well.
Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?
Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!
Any more questions?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Elite, The Humble, and Two Types of Government
Two recent posts I made (here and here) regarding authoritarian elites and the governing of others looked at some points Vache Folle made about evil and stupid people. Now, he wrangles with a way to disqualify evil and stupid people from serving in high office (here). People can be combinations of good or evil, and clever or stupid, resulting in four possible combinations. By eliminating those who are both evil and stupid, a quarter of the pool is cut off, so the results will be greatly enhanced.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Authoritarian Wankers
Nevermind hitting the nail on the head, Vache Folle uses a pneumatic hammer in nailing this one. His latest post is about George F. Will, but this quote covers the bases:
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.How true this is. Too bad this mindset is alive and well in the church as well.
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Letter on Creation, Dualism and the Weaker Brother
Andrew Sandlin's reply to a letter written to him is posted on his blog. This letter ties the doctrine of creation to Christian liberty in a way that I couldn't have said so myself in such simple terms. He points out that dualism throws a roadblock down in our understanding of Christian liberty. Read it here.
Friday, March 17, 2006
God Gave Guinness
History has it that St. Patrick explained the Holy Trinity to the king of Ireland using the three leafs of a shamrock. This is reason enough to celebrate St. Patrick's Day with one of my favorite pastimes. Drinking a pint of Guinness Stout; room temperature, of course. Not only did Mrs. Scott buy me a six pack, but my mom is cooking a special corned beef and cabbage dish using the hearty dark brown fluid in the recipe. Looking forward to a special day that will result no doubt in thankful praise and worship.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Power to the People
In response to my last post on the kindgom vs. the church, Vache Folle comments that the idea of the kingdom is revolutionary:
The idea of the kingdom gives maximum freedom to individuals. It was for freedom, after all, that Christ set us free. We have the freedom to use our own gifts to the benefit of others, without permission from any clergy or self appointed overlord. We have the freedom of association, freedom to marry or make ourselves eunuchs, to have children, to read God's word, to interpret it for ourselves, to put it into action. We have a relationship to God that on one level is nobody else's business. Our marching orders come from Christ and are not mediated through human agents. If we acted on the authority already delegated us in Christ and didn't abdicate that authority to ecclesiocrats, they would disappear from the landscape.
Many, oh so many, Christians talk much about Christian liberty. If they only knew.
It seems to me that pastors, theologians and seminaries have vested interests in the church from which they derive sustenance and authority, whereas the idea of the kingdom undermines authority and is revolutionary.
The idea of the kingdom gives maximum freedom to individuals. It was for freedom, after all, that Christ set us free. We have the freedom to use our own gifts to the benefit of others, without permission from any clergy or self appointed overlord. We have the freedom of association, freedom to marry or make ourselves eunuchs, to have children, to read God's word, to interpret it for ourselves, to put it into action. We have a relationship to God that on one level is nobody else's business. Our marching orders come from Christ and are not mediated through human agents. If we acted on the authority already delegated us in Christ and didn't abdicate that authority to ecclesiocrats, they would disappear from the landscape.
Many, oh so many, Christians talk much about Christian liberty. If they only knew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)