That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.
I can understand Christians who take the position that they ought not avail themselves of any kind of "self defense" right (or permission).
The tougher case is "defense of others." If your home was burglarized and the invaders were inclined to kill your wife and four kids, would those who say "no thank you" to self defense choose to decline their power to kill the invaders if that was the only way to keep their family alive? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Keep in mind too that if if a psychopath kills me, just cuz he can, and I don't resist, I've allowed him to kill my wife's husband, my children's father, and my grandchildren's grandpa (saying nothing about other relationships). It may be easy to say "I'm willing to die," but it's not nearly as easy to allow a husband, father, grandfather, etc, die -- so that I can be noble in literally turning my cheek.
Frankly, I think "turn the other cheek" is as problematic to interpret literally as the Esther story, perhaps more so. Esther was a real story about something that actually happened in a real world context while turn the other cheek a short wisdom like statement. Hmmm. Kind of like Peter having the sword in the Garden in the first place.
In real life, I might choose not to kill in self defense. I have defended a client against a murder prosecution where my client shot and killed his crazed attacker. I and my family have been threatened by someone who ordered a contract killing in Mexico (of my client, failed). I've thought about this in the real. And when I have, deciding to die myself wasn't so problematic, but then there was my family, my children's father, my wife's husband. Sorry but I would defend them, especially from evil people, as I would their husband and father (even if that's me). That's an easy decision for me.
Great post. That old cadet "theme verse" comes to mind: "if you love me keep my commandments." And the book of James ("show me your works and I will show you your faith"). And the parable of the sheep and the goats (where people are judged in the end on what they did and didn't do).
Even if Reformed Chrsistians perhaps don't err in emphasizing faith and grace, they too often do, by my observation, err in underemphasizing obedience ("works"), for fear of being accused of over-emphasizing works. Paul said something about that of course, facetiously asking, "so should we sin more so that grace can abound?"
Well, I'll certainly not defend Trump's blue collar potty mouth vulgarity, but then I'll not defend it from others either even though I tolerate it. I had cabinets installed this past Saturday by a vulgar potty mouth guy who is otherwise a great guy and good at making and installing cabinets. There's only so much you can do to control vulgar potty mouthed people, and there are lots of them, including my cabinet installer and our current President. BTW, we've had past presidents who were vulgar and/or potty mouthed too, especially in private (as this discussion was).
I do wonder though about the cause for the extra fuss about this apparent reference by Trump to "s***hole countries." How exactly is that word different (in essential meaning) than our references to "third world" countries? Sen. Graham referred to those countries as "hell holes" -- in public no less -- and that reference drew no response at all. Indeed, some of those Dems who now decry Trump's vulgarity emphasize the he'll hole-ishness of these countries when advocating for more refugee status recognition.
So yes I'm displeased about Trump's potty mouth, but also with the Democrats use of it (from a private conversation no less) to publicly chastise for political purposes. After all, there is no rational connection between Trump calling third world countries "s***holes" and the Democrats taking the position that they must walk away from negotiations about DACA. If there was, I suppose I should have told my cabinet installer to stop installing my cabinets the first time he let a potty mouth word fly.
As to who "we are," presumably referencing Americans, we are many different kinds of people. I engage with potty mouthers, non-potty mothers, potty mouthers in private only, potty mouthers all the time, and thousand of others kinds of Americans. We might do well to recognize that Trump is our president, like it or not, and to encourage our political representatives to do their job despite that, rather than finding political excuses to take their ball and go home, something just as unhelpful as saying potty words. Maybe even more unhelpful.
The suggestions of this article notwithstanding, the US should refuse to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. And it should not join a UN effort to ban all nations (including the US) from maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
Were the US to abandon its nuclear arsenal, it would significantly increase, not decrease, the worldwide prospects for war, including war that used nuclear weapons. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting that elimination of a city's police force would have the result of reducing crime.
This is one of the problems that arises when institutional churches take up matters outside their areas of expertise. They tend to approach those issues naively, for the simple reason that they are in fact naive about the issues. Of course, this doesn't mean individuals who are members of institutional churches should not involve themselves in these issues, but they will more often do so after acquiring expertise about those issues so as to avoid the problem of engaging the issues with total naivete.
We do a Harvest Carnival on the Saturday evening before Halloween. It's inside the fellowship hall with all sorts of games, face painting, cake walks, and other kid oriented stuff. Costumes allowed but not required. We draw a lot from both our congregation and community. Its known in the neighborhood because we've done it for a lot of years.
We also have food -- hot dogs and such -- for kids and parents. I'll be working the kitchen again for my umpteenth year. :-)
Bryan. Sounds good but like you, I'm skeptical of "new apps for the church" too. The last CRCNA app, the Banner app, doesn't show comments or allow for commenting. Thus, anyone who accesses the Banner with the Banner app is excluded from commenting on articles, and from seeing the comments of others.
My question about this app: does it have companion web capability? That is, if a church enters its directory data in the Bridge's back end database, is that data entry "one time" so that those who use a computer platform of the Bridge can also access that database?
If this isn't "cross platform," I'm not seeing the benefit as being greater than the burden for (especially smaller (local churches).
OK, thanks Darren. I think you are suggesting that the directory is simply populated by end users and that there is no central database repository of directory information??
So I've downloaded the app (Android OS) and I've had my "account verified." However, it would seem that all the local churches that are available to associate with are in Ontario, save one in Bellevue, Washington CRC churches (my local CRC is in Salem Oregon). For that reason, I can't really explore what this app would do that would benefit local CRC churches.
How would my church (Sunnyslope CRC, in Salem, Oregon) go about "being one of the local churches" listed in the app's local church listings?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Great comment Trevor. :-)
Posted in: Missional Pastoral Care
And I still can't figure out exactly what the word "missional" means. :-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
What a delightful article.
That Scripture, examined in context and as a whole, does not condemn what we today might call the rights of "self-defense" or "defense of others" (legal concepts having their basis, as US law does, in the worldview of Christianity) is not an automatic conclusion drawn by Christians these days, even CRC ones, even if it once was.
This article should be posted on the Do Justice site.
;-)
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I don't like bumper sticker theology either, that is, drawing simplistic truths from out of context "proof texts." But then there is the opposite problem too, refusing to extract any truth at all from scripture (except that we "must all love each other," ironically an example of simplistic proof texting).
Take the year of jubilee. Some want to simplistically apply that to 21st century politics (maybe theonomists, or opposite that some social justice fans). Others ignore it as the OT (just not applicable anymore). I think the principle in the year of jubilee should inform us (whether as to how we do government or personal living), but not be a particular formula.
I think this article hits the sweet spot of interpreting OT rather well. It extracts a generalized principle (self-defense and defense of others is allowed, good and proper), without getting too specific (e.g., that we should adopt Persian law or that we may arm ourselves only with swords and spears but not guns).
I do understand why some would fail to see the principle translation of the Esther story to the 2nd Amendment, but if they do, I think it is because they don't (or won't) understand the argument dominantly made by 2nd Amendment fans. Other than using guns for extracurriculars like hunting or sport (which many also abhor), 2nd Amendment fans want the right to have guns to defend themselves and (usually more important to them) their families. If we assume the latter motivation, Esther provides an pretty spot on scriptural principle for extraction.
Of course, if you assume 2nd Amendment fans are bullies or tough guys that like to swagger by their armament display ...... well, Esther doesn't help at all, and doesn't seem to apply to today.
I don't own a gun, never have. But my sense of the many people who do -- that sense gained from my living with them -- is that they don't want guns to be bullies or show swagger. In fact, I find gun owners to be, statistically speaking, a group that has perhaps an extra dose of feeling responsible to live with personal integrity and to be responsible, including to others.
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I can understand Christians who take the position that they ought not avail themselves of any kind of "self defense" right (or permission).
The tougher case is "defense of others." If your home was burglarized and the invaders were inclined to kill your wife and four kids, would those who say "no thank you" to self defense choose to decline their power to kill the invaders if that was the only way to keep their family alive? I doubt it. Nor should they.
Keep in mind too that if if a psychopath kills me, just cuz he can, and I don't resist, I've allowed him to kill my wife's husband, my children's father, and my grandchildren's grandpa (saying nothing about other relationships). It may be easy to say "I'm willing to die," but it's not nearly as easy to allow a husband, father, grandfather, etc, die -- so that I can be noble in literally turning my cheek.
Frankly, I think "turn the other cheek" is as problematic to interpret literally as the Esther story, perhaps more so. Esther was a real story about something that actually happened in a real world context while turn the other cheek a short wisdom like statement. Hmmm. Kind of like Peter having the sword in the Garden in the first place.
In real life, I might choose not to kill in self defense. I have defended a client against a murder prosecution where my client shot and killed his crazed attacker. I and my family have been threatened by someone who ordered a contract killing in Mexico (of my client, failed). I've thought about this in the real. And when I have, deciding to die myself wasn't so problematic, but then there was my family, my children's father, my wife's husband. Sorry but I would defend them, especially from evil people, as I would their husband and father (even if that's me). That's an easy decision for me.
Posted in: If Ever There Was a Need for Integrity, It Is Now
Great post. That old cadet "theme verse" comes to mind: "if you love me keep my commandments." And the book of James ("show me your works and I will show you your faith"). And the parable of the sheep and the goats (where people are judged in the end on what they did and didn't do).
Even if Reformed Chrsistians perhaps don't err in emphasizing faith and grace, they too often do, by my observation, err in underemphasizing obedience ("works"), for fear of being accused of over-emphasizing works. Paul said something about that of course, facetiously asking, "so should we sin more so that grace can abound?"
Posted in: Do Trump’s "S---hole" Remarks Represent American Values?
Well, I'll certainly not defend Trump's blue collar potty mouth vulgarity, but then I'll not defend it from others either even though I tolerate it. I had cabinets installed this past Saturday by a vulgar potty mouth guy who is otherwise a great guy and good at making and installing cabinets. There's only so much you can do to control vulgar potty mouthed people, and there are lots of them, including my cabinet installer and our current President. BTW, we've had past presidents who were vulgar and/or potty mouthed too, especially in private (as this discussion was).
I do wonder though about the cause for the extra fuss about this apparent reference by Trump to "s***hole countries." How exactly is that word different (in essential meaning) than our references to "third world" countries? Sen. Graham referred to those countries as "hell holes" -- in public no less -- and that reference drew no response at all. Indeed, some of those Dems who now decry Trump's vulgarity emphasize the he'll hole-ishness of these countries when advocating for more refugee status recognition.
So yes I'm displeased about Trump's potty mouth, but also with the Democrats use of it (from a private conversation no less) to publicly chastise for political purposes. After all, there is no rational connection between Trump calling third world countries "s***holes" and the Democrats taking the position that they must walk away from negotiations about DACA. If there was, I suppose I should have told my cabinet installer to stop installing my cabinets the first time he let a potty mouth word fly.
As to who "we are," presumably referencing Americans, we are many different kinds of people. I engage with potty mouthers, non-potty mothers, potty mouthers in private only, potty mouthers all the time, and thousand of others kinds of Americans. We might do well to recognize that Trump is our president, like it or not, and to encourage our political representatives to do their job despite that, rather than finding political excuses to take their ball and go home, something just as unhelpful as saying potty words. Maybe even more unhelpful.
Posted in: Swords Into Ploughshares: Agents of Shalom in a Nuclear Age
The suggestions of this article notwithstanding, the US should refuse to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. And it should not join a UN effort to ban all nations (including the US) from maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
Were the US to abandon its nuclear arsenal, it would significantly increase, not decrease, the worldwide prospects for war, including war that used nuclear weapons. Suggesting otherwise is akin to suggesting that elimination of a city's police force would have the result of reducing crime.
This is one of the problems that arises when institutional churches take up matters outside their areas of expertise. They tend to approach those issues naively, for the simple reason that they are in fact naive about the issues. Of course, this doesn't mean individuals who are members of institutional churches should not involve themselves in these issues, but they will more often do so after acquiring expertise about those issues so as to avoid the problem of engaging the issues with total naivete.
Posted in: What Does Your Church Do With Halloween?
We do a Harvest Carnival on the Saturday evening before Halloween. It's inside the fellowship hall with all sorts of games, face painting, cake walks, and other kid oriented stuff. Costumes allowed but not required. We draw a lot from both our congregation and community. Its known in the neighborhood because we've done it for a lot of years.
We also have food -- hot dogs and such -- for kids and parents. I'll be working the kitchen again for my umpteenth year. :-)
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
Bryan. Sounds good but like you, I'm skeptical of "new apps for the church" too. The last CRCNA app, the Banner app, doesn't show comments or allow for commenting. Thus, anyone who accesses the Banner with the Banner app is excluded from commenting on articles, and from seeing the comments of others.
My question about this app: does it have companion web capability? That is, if a church enters its directory data in the Bridge's back end database, is that data entry "one time" so that those who use a computer platform of the Bridge can also access that database?
If this isn't "cross platform," I'm not seeing the benefit as being greater than the burden for (especially smaller (local churches).
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
OK, thanks Darren. I think you are suggesting that the directory is simply populated by end users and that there is no central database repository of directory information??
So I've downloaded the app (Android OS) and I've had my "account verified." However, it would seem that all the local churches that are available to associate with are in Ontario, save one in Bellevue, Washington CRC churches (my local CRC is in Salem Oregon). For that reason, I can't really explore what this app would do that would benefit local CRC churches.
How would my church (Sunnyslope CRC, in Salem, Oregon) go about "being one of the local churches" listed in the app's local church listings?
Posted in: Helping Your Church Bridge the Gap Between Sundays: A Look at the CRCNA’s New Mobile App
Thanks much for that Ken. Very helpful. We'll patiently wait. :-)