|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 14:25:10 GMT -5
Democracy "YES",chosen/selected,BISHOPS,ELDERS,PASTORS,DEACONS,COUNSILLORS,TEACHERS,EVANGALISTS,PREACHERS,SHARING ONES GIFTS FROM GOD. A WORKABLE,SELECTED TEAM,, AS SHOULD BE IN ALL DEMOCRACIES? Because it works does not make it a democracy. Any mention of elections? Do you know what " demo"cracy means?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 14:46:01 GMT -5
Fixit wrote, "As they say, this fellowship is not a democracy. Its more like a theocracy." Was the church in the bible "democratic"? Did God give instruction for "democracy"? Did Jesus cast votes on any doctrinal issue? What does a "democratic church" look like? The Democratic church looks like this. (1) There are a number of individuals who could become the leader. They make a pitch for people to choose them when they cast their votes. (2) The people vote for individuals to represent them in government. They have a number of individuals to pick from, and they vote for the ones they think will do the best job. (3) Through a constitutional process the representatives of the people determine which of all the candidates for top office will become the leader. (4) And the process is repeated at regular intervals as long as the democracy lasts. Democratic leaders are not elected for life. That is NOT how God or Jesus got their role. Does anyone know of a church that has decided WHICH GOD or WHICH JESUS they would believe in? Of course not. Sure, the pope is elected. But what input do the people have? Popes are elected by the popes' own appointees. That makes it a theocratic dictatorship. Democratic leaders are not elected for life.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 14:54:52 GMT -5
But in God's kingdom the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That's more like a democracy! God's kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between. So, IMO, anarchy is the correct model for those who love and serve God. What Hat, according to the definition of anarchy, the 2 underlined sections are not compatible! 1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority
1.1Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual,...The problem with this discussion is that we are trying to compare temporal government models with religion. That's like discussing the similarities between changing baby's diapers and keeping the neighbor's dog from sh-ting on your lawn.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 11, 2014 14:59:02 GMT -5
But in God's kingdom the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That's more like a democracy! God's kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between. So, IMO, anarchy is the correct model for those who love and serve God. What Hat, according to the definition of anarchy, the 2 underlined sections are not compatible! 1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority
1.1Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual,...The word anarchy is a bit like the word cult in that it has different meanings to different people. Here's the correct model for those who love and serve God:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 11, 2014 15:50:45 GMT -5
What Hat, according to the definition of anarchy, the 2 underlined sections are not compatible! 1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority
1.1Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual,...The word anarchy is a bit like the word cult in that it has different meanings to different people. Here's the correct model for those who love and serve God: That's right. There is a definition of anarchy which just means "self regulating". There's an interesting discussion of this topic on wikipedia. I note Immanuel Kant's definition of anarchy as "law and freedom without force".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 11, 2014 17:35:14 GMT -5
There is a definition of anarchy which just means "self regulating". There's an interesting discussion of this topic on wikipedia. I note Immanuel Kant's definition of anarchy as "law and freedom without force". That Government is best which governs least.The only "governing" Jesus recommended in the statement below is the government of self...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 20:08:16 GMT -5
The word anarchy is a bit like the word cult in that it has different meanings to different people. And a ton of other words that inarticulate people have not bothered to learn the correct meaning of.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 11, 2014 21:02:49 GMT -5
The word anarchy is a bit like the word cult in that it has different meanings to different people. And a ton of other words that inarticulate people have not bothered to learn the correct meaning of. Do you agree with the Dictionary.com meaning of anarchy?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 21:07:17 GMT -5
And a ton of other words that inarticulate people have not bothered to learn the correct meaning of. Do you agree with the Dictionary.com meaning of anarchy? No. Did you think I was disagreeing with you?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 11, 2014 21:08:33 GMT -5
What Hat's use of the word anarchy doesn't suggest negative results like confusion, turmoil, chaos, disruption etc. God's kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between. So, IMO, anarchy is the correct model for those who love and serve God.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 11, 2014 22:05:00 GMT -5
What Hat's use of the word anarchy doesn't suggest negative results like confusion, turmoil, chaos, disruption etc. God's kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between. So, IMO, anarchy is the correct model for those who love and serve God. Well, if you take the phrase relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between at face value, believers would assume that it is the perfect solution against anarchy. A lot of people, on the other hand, don't see that as being the force that keeps "God's people" united, and discussions such as we have in this group are more evidence of anarchy than unity. In theory, you are correct. What Hat may represent those who do not see it happening that way. But again, comparing religion to temporal governments is really like comparing changing the baby's diaper with keeping the neighbor's dog from sh-ting on your lawn. The first involves caring for helpless and perfectly submissive individuals, and the second involves protecting yourself from the damages caused by individuals/dogs that you neither own nor control. The Christian church has a very long history of condemnation of democracy, FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 12, 2014 9:00:21 GMT -5
What Hat's use of the word anarchy doesn't suggest negative results like confusion, turmoil, chaos, disruption etc. Well, if you take the phrase relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between at face value, believers would assume that it is the perfect solution against anarchy. A lot of people, on the other hand, don't see that as being the force that keeps "God's people" united, and discussions such as we have in this group are more evidence of anarchy than unity. In theory, you are correct. What Hat may represent those who do not see it happening that way. But again, comparing religion to temporal governments is really like comparing changing the baby's diaper with keeping the neighbor's dog from sh-ting on your lawn. The first involves caring for helpless and perfectly submissive individuals, and the second involves protecting yourself from the damages caused by individuals/dogs that you neither own nor control. The Christian church has a very long history of condemnation of democracy, FWIW. What I'm writing about is very narrow, but in line with Bert's opening post. That is, how do you interpret Scripture as it relates to church government? And, it's just my opinion, although I'm not the only one with that opinion. Just Google "Christian anarchy". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. I swear I did not look at that when I posted. But this anarchic sentiment, meaning self-regulation or leading by the Spirit, does actually reflect the impetus with which the f&w church began, and reflects the feelings of many of its members today. One friend told me on numerous occasions that he thought the idea of 'head workers' was wrong, and they were not required. The movement has shifted over time into one with more control and power at the centre, to its great detriment. The idea of 'anarchy' that has been floated by philosophers over time is not one of chaos, but of self-regulation. Of course, many of the attempts to set up a government modeled on these principles have ended in chaos. You're talking about something quite different, Bob, so I don't really see us disagreeing. You're casting the net a little wider to look at church government as more commonly practiced, which is, indeed, often the farthest thing from a democracy. I think churches really get themselves into trouble when they have a patriarchy and believe its organizing principles have been decreed by God. *shudder*
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2014 14:08:06 GMT -5
Well, if you take the phrase relies on direct rule of men and women's hearts by God, and no other man or woman should come between at face value, believers would assume that it is the perfect solution against anarchy. A lot of people, on the other hand, don't see that as being the force that keeps "God's people" united, and discussions such as we have in this group are more evidence of anarchy than unity. In theory, you are correct. What Hat may represent those who do not see it happening that way. But again, comparing religion to temporal governments is really like comparing changing the baby's diaper with keeping the neighbor's dog from sh-ting on your lawn. The first involves caring for helpless and perfectly submissive individuals, and the second involves protecting yourself from the damages caused by individuals/dogs that you neither own nor control. The Christian church has a very long history of condemnation of democracy, FWIW. What I'm writing about is very narrow, but in line with Bert's opening post. That is, how do you interpret Scripture as it relates to church government? And, it's just my opinion, although I'm not the only one with that opinion. Just Google "Christian anarchy". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. I swear I did not look at that when I posted. But this anarchic sentiment, meaning self-regulation or leading by the Spirit, does actually reflect the impetus with which the f&w church began, and reflects the feelings of many of its members today. One friend told me on numerous occasions that he thought the idea of 'head workers' was wrong, and they were not required. The movement has shifted over time into one with more control and power at the centre, to its great detriment. The idea of 'anarchy' that has been floated by philosophers over time is not one of chaos, but of self-regulation. Of course, many of the attempts to set up a government modeled on these principles have ended in chaos. You're talking about something quite different, Bob, so I don't really see us disagreeing. You're casting the net a little wider to look at church government as more commonly practiced, which is, indeed, often the farthest thing from a democracy. I think churches really get themselves into trouble when they have a patriarchy and believe its organizing principles have been decreed by God. *shudder* Yes, I do agree with you. I understand the feelings of the friends who don't approve of the "power structure" -- I've heard from the day I could understand what they were talking about that everyone was led by God and that's why everything went perfectly. In fact, I was embarrassingly grown up when I first learned that we had a head worker, and still much older when I learned that head workers had serious differences. At the same time, I was quite young when I determined that individual workers didn't much care for the anarchy model when it came to regulating people's lives. It was a major disconcertion to me in my 50's to learn that this righteous anarchy was not being respected, but was even being preached against. It's quite normal that temporal governments have no use for anarchy. After all, those governments are constructed to provide order where human society requires it for survival -- not really because anything is right or wrong, but just because there has to be a mechanism for solving the problems of humans living together. Societal anarchists do much better out in the wilds where there is no need for human government. Unfortunately far too many Christians believe the purpose of temporal governments is the same as "everyone being led by God" ... ignoring the simple fact that God didn't mandate such things as which side of the road to drive on, how to build a house that was earthquake proof, or how to finance infrastructures. They are more concerned with finding a way to make everyone else behave the way they want them to, than they are with their own "righteous anarchy" (my invention).
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 12, 2014 14:54:44 GMT -5
What I'm writing about is very narrow, but in line with Bert's opening post. That is, how do you interpret Scripture as it relates to church government? And, it's just my opinion, although I'm not the only one with that opinion. Just Google "Christian anarchy". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. I swear I did not look at that when I posted. But this anarchic sentiment, meaning self-regulation or leading by the Spirit, does actually reflect the impetus with which the f&w church began, and reflects the feelings of many of its members today. One friend told me on numerous occasions that he thought the idea of 'head workers' was wrong, and they were not required. The movement has shifted over time into one with more control and power at the centre, to its great detriment. The idea of 'anarchy' that has been floated by philosophers over time is not one of chaos, but of self-regulation. Of course, many of the attempts to set up a government modeled on these principles have ended in chaos. You're talking about something quite different, Bob, so I don't really see us disagreeing. You're casting the net a little wider to look at church government as more commonly practiced, which is, indeed, often the farthest thing from a democracy. I think churches really get themselves into trouble when they have a patriarchy and believe its organizing principles have been decreed by God. *shudder* Self-regulation (humanly) is good but the authority of God is absolutely necessary. I believe most friends do much more self-regulation, with God's guidance, than they are given credit for.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 12, 2014 15:29:42 GMT -5
What I'm writing about is very narrow, but in line with Bert's opening post. That is, how do you interpret Scripture as it relates to church government? And, it's just my opinion, although I'm not the only one with that opinion. Just Google "Christian anarchy". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. I swear I did not look at that when I posted. But this anarchic sentiment, meaning self-regulation or leading by the Spirit, does actually reflect the impetus with which the f&w church began, and reflects the feelings of many of its members today. One friend told me on numerous occasions that he thought the idea of 'head workers' was wrong, and they were not required. The movement has shifted over time into one with more control and power at the centre, to its great detriment. The idea of 'anarchy' that has been floated by philosophers over time is not one of chaos, but of self-regulation. Of course, many of the attempts to set up a government modeled on these principles have ended in chaos. You're talking about something quite different, Bob, so I don't really see us disagreeing. You're casting the net a little wider to look at church government as more commonly practiced, which is, indeed, often the farthest thing from a democracy. I think churches really get themselves into trouble when they have a patriarchy and believe its organizing principles have been decreed by God. *shudder* Self-regulation (humanly) is good but the authority of God is absolutely necessary. I believe most friends do much more self-regulation, with God's guidance, than they are given credit for. In Vietnam, where Dale Shultz and his buddies are trying to impose the rule of man, we can see that many are choosing God's guidance instead.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 12, 2014 16:11:56 GMT -5
The word anarchy is a bit like the word cult in that it has different meanings to different people. And a ton of other words that inarticulate people have not bothered to learn the correct meaning of. Living languages evolve despite the protests of the learned!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 12, 2014 20:56:53 GMT -5
What I'm writing about is very narrow, but in line with Bert's opening post. That is, how do you interpret Scripture as it relates to church government? And, it's just my opinion, although I'm not the only one with that opinion. Just Google "Christian anarchy". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. I swear I did not look at that when I posted. But this anarchic sentiment, meaning self-regulation or leading by the Spirit, does actually reflect the impetus with which the f&w church began, and reflects the feelings of many of its members today. One friend told me on numerous occasions that he thought the idea of 'head workers' was wrong, and they were not required. The movement has shifted over time into one with more control and power at the centre, to its great detriment. The idea of 'anarchy' that has been floated by philosophers over time is not one of chaos, but of self-regulation. Of course, many of the attempts to set up a government modeled on these principles have ended in chaos. You're talking about something quite different, Bob, so I don't really see us disagreeing. You're casting the net a little wider to look at church government as more commonly practiced, which is, indeed, often the farthest thing from a democracy. I think churches really get themselves into trouble when they have a patriarchy and believe its organizing principles have been decreed by God. *shudder* Self-regulation (humanly) is good but the authority of God is absolutely necessary. I believe most friends do much more self-regulation, with God's guidance, than they are given credit for. By "self regulation" and "the authority of God" I mean exactly the same thing. I truly believe that those who submit to the authority of God don't need a lot of rules and regulations. I also agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2014 21:26:11 GMT -5
And a ton of other words that inarticulate people have not bothered to learn the correct meaning of. Living languages evolve despite the protests of the learned! This is true.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2014 21:39:35 GMT -5
Self-regulation (humanly) is good but the authority of God is absolutely necessary. I believe most friends do much more self-regulation, with God's guidance, than they are given credit for. By "self regulation" and "the authority of God" I mean exactly the same thing. I truly believe that those who submit to the authority of God don't need a lot of rules and regulations. I also agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ. WhatHat, are you suggesting that the whole world could be in such subjection to God that there would be no need for temporal governments? In theory that's a wonderful proposition, but in reality it's a fantasy, with no assurance at all from the Bible that such a situation will ever exist. That is why we will always need temporal governments quite separate from any religious beliefs or traditions. Your last statement about the self-regulated taking more resistance against those who take away their liberty "in Christ" shouldn't be treated as something unexpected or out of the ordinary -- it's a clear confirmation of the necessity of temporal governments to keep the peace. There is nothing in Christian scriptures to support practicing a resistance against those who take away one's liberty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 22:36:19 GMT -5
Quote - "Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ."
About 50% of what Paul wrote was "regulation." About 50% of what Jesus said was "regulation."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 12, 2014 23:39:51 GMT -5
By "self regulation" and "the authority of God" I mean exactly the same thing. I truly believe that those who submit to the authority of God don't need a lot of rules and regulations. I also agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ. WhatHat, are you suggesting that the whole world could be in such subjection to God that there would be no need for temporal governments? In theory that's a wonderful proposition, but in reality it's a fantasy, with no assurance at all from the Bible that such a situation will ever exist. That is why we will always need temporal governments quite separate from any religious beliefs or traditions. Could be, but never would be, because the whole world is not in such subjection to God. Most decent people don't need laws or law enforcement, I believe. They know what is wrong and what is right. Authority is necessary to keep the peace, it's true. The resistance I'm talking about is against *that* authority, which keeps the peace, but also takes away our liberty. Certainly, the Bible speaks of wolves in sheep's clothing, and tares among the wheat. Also, the Pharisees are the epitome of those who have the rules but miss the boat on an essentially sound ethic. I think Jesus going to the Cross was a form of resistance; sticking to what is right and true against all odds.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 12, 2014 23:47:23 GMT -5
Quote - "Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ." About 50% of what Paul wrote was "regulation." About 50% of what Jesus said was "regulation."The thing is - there is no need to process Scripture as regulation, and in fact, it's dangerous to do so. For example, Jesus made some statements about divorce, as practiced by the Pharisees. That was meant for those Jews in that time and that situation. Various churches take those words as binding on marriage and divorce today, but I believe marriage issues should be worked out with the two people in the marriage, and the church doesn't need to get involved, IMO. It's between them and God, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 13, 2014 9:04:33 GMT -5
By "self regulation" and "the authority of God" I mean exactly the same thing. I truly believe that those who submit to the authority of God don't need a lot of rules and regulations. I also agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, a minority of people who get into the regulation game can do a lot of damage, especially if they happen to be head workers. The other issue is that those who "self regulate" also need to practice more active resistance against those who take away their liberty in Christ. WhatHat, are you suggesting that the whole world could be in such subjection to God that there would be no need for temporal governments? In theory that's a wonderful proposition, but in reality it's a fantasy, with no assurance at all from the Bible that such a situation will ever exist. That is why we will always need temporal governments quite separate from any religious beliefs or traditions. Your last statement about the self-regulated taking more resistance against those who take away their liberty "in Christ" shouldn't be treated as something unexpected or out of the ordinary -- it's a clear confirmation of the necessity of temporal governments to keep the peace. There is nothing in Christian scriptures to support practicing a resistance against those who take away one's liberty. Perhaps I could be clearer, and so I'll take another try at this; the other post was just before bedtime last night. Society collectively does need rules and regulations and discipline and punishment to keep people in line. As an individual, I don't need rules and regulations and discipline, because I'm committed to the underlying values of living an honest and ethical life. I could use situational coaching and wisdom at times, that is true. And I think that's true for many, maybe even most, individuals. Further, within its structure, society over-reaches in terms of controlling people, and that is something I do need to be concerned with. A simple example - sending young people to needless wars in order to further the interests of the ruling class. That is something that needs to be resisted in some way. That's what I mean by resistance. I believe the principle of "passive resistance" is how we put Jesus example into practice within society. I'm also not happy with what our respective countries are becoming, which is, more like Communist East Germany with every passing day. Finally, within a church structure, the normalizing and objectifying tendencies operating on the individual are extremely strong; and IMO should not even exist. That's very abstract, but to put in plain English, a worker should NEVER censure a person about issues that are not ethical in nature, that is, that do not amount to tangible harm for anyone in the church. That's supposed to be between that person and God.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 13, 2014 15:24:16 GMT -5
Further, within its structure, society over-reaches in terms of controlling people, and that is something I do need to be concerned with. A simple example - sending young people to needless wars in order to further the interests of the ruling class. That is something that needs to be resisted in some way. That's what I mean by resistance. I believe the principle of "passive resistance" is how we put Jesus example into practice within society. I'm also not happy with what our respective countries are becoming, which is, more like Communist East Germany with every passing day. War is a normal part of human existence and to minimize it you need authority which has to be defended. Passive resistance only works when the enemy has a conscience, and history is littered with peace-loving people who've been brutally destroyed. Can you explain how you would decide what are "needful" wars and what are "needless" wars?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 13, 2014 17:37:17 GMT -5
Further, within its structure, society over-reaches in terms of controlling people, and that is something I do need to be concerned with. A simple example - sending young people to needless wars in order to further the interests of the ruling class. That is something that needs to be resisted in some way. That's what I mean by resistance. I believe the principle of "passive resistance" is how we put Jesus example into practice within society. I'm also not happy with what our respective countries are becoming, which is, more like Communist East Germany with every passing day. War is a normal part of human existence and to minimize it you need authority which has to be defended. Passive resistance only works when the enemy has a conscience, and history is littered with peace-loving people who've been brutally destroyed. Can you explain how you would decide what are "needful" wars and what are "needless" wars? If everyone decided wars were needless, there would be no more wars. So you have to start somewhere. Passive resistance won't always work. Neither will kindness, love, mercy and forgiveness. I can think of one man in particular who was crucified for his stupidity in putting his faith in these qualities. At the same time, I understand your question, and that my preceding answers, while clever, are inadequate. I think in a war situation I would try to help my country without carrying a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 13, 2014 19:07:47 GMT -5
War is a normal part of human existence and to minimize it you need authority which has to be defended. Passive resistance only works when the enemy has a conscience, and history is littered with peace-loving people who've been brutally destroyed. Can you explain how you would decide what are "needful" wars and what are "needless" wars? If everyone decided wars were needless, there would be no more wars. So you have to start somewhere. Passive resistance won't always work. Neither will kindness, love, mercy and forgiveness. I can think of one man in particular who was crucified for his stupidity in putting his faith in these qualities. At the same time, I understand your question, and that my preceding answers, while clever, are inadequate. I think in a war situation I would try to help my country without carrying a weapon. I appreciate your answer WH. I wish there were no more wars. Unfortunately I think the war situation is about to get a lot worse before it gets better. It seems that Jesus advocated submission to the Roman occupation, yet they crucified him anyway. Peaceful protest changed oppressive regimes in eastern Europe, but it didn't work in Syria. The fired on the protesters until they took up arms. I saw this recently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_BackIt mentions non-violent idealists from western countries who went to Russia to support the revolution, only to end up dead or in concentration camps.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 13, 2014 20:18:29 GMT -5
WhatHat, are you suggesting that the whole world could be in such subjection to God that there would be no need for temporal governments? In theory that's a wonderful proposition, but in reality it's a fantasy, with no assurance at all from the Bible that such a situation will ever exist. That is why we will always need temporal governments quite separate from any religious beliefs or traditions. Your last statement about the self-regulated taking more resistance against those who take away their liberty "in Christ" shouldn't be treated as something unexpected or out of the ordinary -- it's a clear confirmation of the necessity of temporal governments to keep the peace. There is nothing in Christian scriptures to support practicing a resistance against those who take away one's liberty. Perhaps I could be clearer, and so I'll take another try at this; the other post was just before bedtime last night. Society collectively does need rules and regulations and discipline and punishment to keep people in line. As an individual, I don't need rules and regulations and discipline, because I'm committed to the underlying values of living an honest and ethical life. I could use situational coaching and wisdom at times, that is true. And I think that's true for many, maybe even most, individuals. Further, within its structure, society over-reaches in terms of controlling people, and that is something I do need to be concerned with. A simple example - sending young people to needless wars in order to further the interests of the ruling class. That is something that needs to be resisted in some way. That's what I mean by resistance. I believe the principle of "passive resistance" is how we put Jesus example into practice within society. I'm also not happy with what our respective countries are becoming, which is, more like Communist East Germany with every passing day. Finally, within a church structure, the normalizing and objectifying tendencies operating on the individual are extremely strong; and IMO should not even exist. That's very abstract, but to put in plain English, a worker should NEVER censure a person about issues that are not ethical in nature, that is, that do not amount to tangible harm for anyone in the church. That's supposed to be between that person and God. I think you're saying the same thing I am saying. But the kinds of resistance you're talking about are not Christian resistances, but issues that are more in line with human rights and freedoms than religions. The New Testament doesn't advocate resistance against governments, but against evil. The reason we have come to believe in resisting governments is because we have been taught democratic principles and given the right to petition government -- we have been made the government. That's not because we are either righteous or religious .. it's because we're human beings living in a democracy. A Christian's right to resist the government is a democratic right, not a scriptural obligation. As long as religions, especially monotheistic religions, organize, they will never be entirely comfortable with any form of government.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 13, 2014 20:33:33 GMT -5
If everyone decided wars were needless, there would be no more wars. So you have to start somewhere. Passive resistance won't always work. Neither will kindness, love, mercy and forgiveness. I can think of one man in particular who was crucified for his stupidity in putting his faith in these qualities. At the same time, I understand your question, and that my preceding answers, while clever, are inadequate. I think in a war situation I would try to help my country without carrying a weapon. I appreciate your answer WH. I wish there were no more wars. Unfortunately I think the war situation is about to get a lot worse before it gets better. It seems that Jesus advocated submission to the Roman occupation, yet they crucified him anyway. Peaceful protest changed oppressive regimes in eastern Europe, but it didn't work in Syria. The fired on the protesters until they took up arms. I saw this recently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_BackIt mentions non-violent idealists from western countries who went to Russia to support the revolution, only to end up dead or in concentration camps. Yes. These things happen. And in reality, religions are more the cause than the antidote. I believe we just have to accept that New Testament teachings are all for our own "personal" edification and values. I don't think they have anything at all to do with running a government or controlling our neighbors or even defending ourselves against people who slap our face. There is no bill of rights in the scriptures -- that's a concept that came uniquely with democracy, which BTW has long considered democracy its enemy. The resurrection itself if the highest example of Christian righteousness, not self preservation or societal influence.
|
|