So, Roger, I hear you saying that the Christian message is foolishness to the secularist. Where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right:
I Corinthians 1:18-25 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[fn] to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
Stepping back from the individual congregational level a moment, would you say that it was helpful for denominational branding to drop any frontline mention of CR in the newly-named World Renew and Resonate? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that your job would have placed you in position to have significant input into the renaming process. Can we really expect individual congregations to follow a different path than that which is modeled by the denomination?
“But, the overtures go too far; they draw the lines too rigid. By these overtures the denomination should not have spoken against, or taken action to oppose: slavery, racism, Nazism, Apartheid, or the current Canadian government’s curtailment of religious liberties.”
That’s simply not true, Nick. For the church to say that murder and genocide are immoral is not practicing politics. Sending delegations to Paris to opine on international climate pacts is practicing politics. For the church to say that God has instituted marriage as between a man and a woman is not practicing politics. Lobbying in the halls of congress for particular immigration policies that bend in one direction is practicing politics. For the church to say that stealing and owning people and not paying them for service is immoral is not practicing politics. Giving church members one-sided information about the conflict in Israel/Palestine is practicing politics. For the church to say that the government has no business impinging on freedom of religion is not practicing politics. For the church to say that hatred for fellow man is immoral is not practicing politics. The church always has spoken to moral issues, and for millennia has managed to do it without the church forming groups to lobby the government for certain preferred policies.
I agree with this statement. I think that we can both recognize distinct definitions of different theological terms and their necessary interrelatedness. I cannot imagine the concept of peace without the presence of justice. Injustice does break shalom, as I understand it. That does not mean at all that justice can be flattened out to be essentially the pursuit of shalom. Both terms are more complex and distinct than that, even as they are inextricably linked.
Right, and I'm saying that some of how you issued your call to action is odd and communicates things that are not necessarily helpful and perhaps you did not intend.
Here's the difference you left out, Roger: God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son. Thus he is just and the justifier. Remember, we are now seen as being perfectly righteous, as if we had never broken the law. The police officer in the example was not just, because he simply excused the offense. God does no such thing.
Eye for eye was about vengeance, and had been perverted by the Pharisees. Jesus was not speaking of self defense in that passage. Loving your enemy is not a universal command to allow wicked men to take innocent life. Such a reading is not consistent with the rest of scripture. Should we allow a stranger to attack and kill a child while we stand by idly under the guise of loving our enemy?
I also don't think that Dan was arguing that a Persian law was normative, per se, but that the law recognized a normative principle based on the protection of innocent human life and was also in keeping with the testimony of scripture in other places.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
So, Roger, I hear you saying that the Christian message is foolishness to the secularist. Where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right:
I Corinthians 1:18-25 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[fn] to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
Roger that.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Your disdain for God's Word saddens me. I hope someday that you too can come to know and trust God through his Word.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Your questions and statements belie your claim that you do not disdain God's Word.
Posted in: Why Your Church Needs a Brand
Hi Kristen,
Stepping back from the individual congregational level a moment, would you say that it was helpful for denominational branding to drop any frontline mention of CR in the newly-named World Renew and Resonate? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that your job would have placed you in position to have significant input into the renaming process. Can we really expect individual congregations to follow a different path than that which is modeled by the denomination?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
“But, the overtures go too far; they draw the lines too rigid. By these overtures the denomination should not have spoken against, or taken action to oppose: slavery, racism, Nazism, Apartheid, or the current Canadian government’s curtailment of religious liberties.”
That’s simply not true, Nick. For the church to say that murder and genocide are immoral is not practicing politics. Sending delegations to Paris to opine on international climate pacts is practicing politics. For the church to say that God has instituted marriage as between a man and a woman is not practicing politics. Lobbying in the halls of congress for particular immigration policies that bend in one direction is practicing politics. For the church to say that stealing and owning people and not paying them for service is immoral is not practicing politics. Giving church members one-sided information about the conflict in Israel/Palestine is practicing politics. For the church to say that the government has no business impinging on freedom of religion is not practicing politics. For the church to say that hatred for fellow man is immoral is not practicing politics. The church always has spoken to moral issues, and for millennia has managed to do it without the church forming groups to lobby the government for certain preferred policies.
You are making a category error.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I agree with this statement. I think that we can both recognize distinct definitions of different theological terms and their necessary interrelatedness. I cannot imagine the concept of peace without the presence of justice. Injustice does break shalom, as I understand it. That does not mean at all that justice can be flattened out to be essentially the pursuit of shalom. Both terms are more complex and distinct than that, even as they are inextricably linked.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
"Agree with this statement" was in reference to Kris' latest in this sub-thread.
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
Right, and I'm saying that some of how you issued your call to action is odd and communicates things that are not necessarily helpful and perhaps you did not intend.
Posted in: It’s Time to Stop Talking About Justice
As did you, so...
It seems to me that you would want to understand Dan's position and properly represent it. Disagreeing is one thing. Misrepresenting is another.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Here's the difference you left out, Roger: God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son. Thus he is just and the justifier. Remember, we are now seen as being perfectly righteous, as if we had never broken the law. The police officer in the example was not just, because he simply excused the offense. God does no such thing.
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
Eye for eye was about vengeance, and had been perverted by the Pharisees. Jesus was not speaking of self defense in that passage. Loving your enemy is not a universal command to allow wicked men to take innocent life. Such a reading is not consistent with the rest of scripture. Should we allow a stranger to attack and kill a child while we stand by idly under the guise of loving our enemy?
Posted in: Esther and the 2nd Amendment
I also don't think that Dan was arguing that a Persian law was normative, per se, but that the law recognized a normative principle based on the protection of innocent human life and was also in keeping with the testimony of scripture in other places.