Should Christians engage in culture wars?

[TheEditor]

Hi Peter,

Good conversation. For starters, I would say that if you are using this passage in it's very limited sense (advice to 1st century slaves), then no problem. But you are stretching the application. If we are going to stretch applications, then why not stretch the application of other verses Paul uses in counselling slaves? Namely;

1 Corinthians 7:21; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18-20

By the way, let's not forget what many slave owners then used slaves for, and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual uses.

Frankly, I can see a myriad of "trade-off" problems living in a society as envisioned by you. First off, I would need a LOT of guns--big ones. Some form of order would have to be enforced somehow, and I don't want to sign on for that. Do you?

Again, I don't mind entertaining the ideas, and I don't have any problem with those holding this philosophy. But to what degree do I think it advisable for a believer to advocate for this? How much of this is a "treasure" to me that I want my "heart" to be there? It seems it's not our business to be socially engineering the wider world estranged from Christ. But that's just my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, go knock your socks off, have fun with that, and write me when you have success.

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

Hi Peter,
Good conversation.

Thank you, I agree.

For starters, I would say that if you are using this passage in it's very limited sense (advice to 1st century slaves), then no problem. But you are stretching the application. If we are going to stretch applications, then why not stretch the application of other verses Paul uses in counselling slaves? Namely;

1 Corinthians 7:21; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18-20

By the way, let's not forget what many slave owners then used slaves for, and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual uses.

Perhaps I am stretching the application here, but I'm not finding it difficult to follow the main teaching of these passages in the context of government. The main teaching of these passages is that slaves are not to rebel against their masters. In like manner, as I have already affirmed, men are not to engage in a violent rebellion against the government they are subjected to.

I had been unaware, until now, of the sexual use of slaves in the historical context. This obviously presents a difficulty I haven't had opportunity to think much about yet - is it your understanding that Paul was advising slaves to submit to the sexual advances of their masters?

In any case, even if I the application of scripture I suggested above is invalid, my argument that the State consumes a vast amount of my time that might be better spent elsewhere remains. The possibility of diminishing this burden seems to be a worthy goal that addresses your primary concern.

Frankly, I can see a myriad of "trade-off" problems living in a society as envisioned by you. First off, I would need a LOT of guns--big ones. Some form of order would have to be enforced somehow, and I don't want to sign on for that. Do you?

I think such is jumping to conclusions about what such a society would like. Gustave de Molinari, Murry Rothbard, and others have advanced what I see as plausible arguments for the private production of security. Perhaps their ideas would lead to petty crimes being more rampant than what they are today, but on the other one has to account in the trade off the benefit of not having a State which frequently causes mass causilties with a standing army. Obviously, I don't embrace a Hobbesian view of the nature of man.

It seems it's not our business to be socially engineering the wider world estranged from Christ.
But that's just my opinion.

I share this opinion. I would just like to submit the observation that your affirmations in favor of having a particular role for the State is arguably slightly more of a form of engineering the world than what I am proposing.

If you disagree, that's fine, go knock your socks off, have fun with that, and write me when you have success.

Thanks. I do not expect to be writing any time soon. If you believe my judgement on these matters is wrong, I welcome you to disabuse me of the errors of my ways.

Regards, Peter

[TheEditor]

Hi Peter,

I gave up on trying to disabuse people of anything. I used to try to free the mindsets of my former organizational brother (JWs) then discovered that in many cases, they were best left with their minds so abused.

I don't suppose there is any harm in playing mumbly-peg with politics. Just be careful where you aim the knife. But, though I had anabaptist leanings as a JW (and still do) I just don't see it as a big issue. However, when I hear the occasional Liberal preaching uber-social gospel, or the cookie-cutter Republican telling me why Jesus would be a Republican, then I may bother. Otherwise, Mazel-Tov!

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

Brenden,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think of these things as being quite important, and if you see it otherwise that is fine with me. One example that came to mind yesterday was the greater freedoms that were attained for parents to homeschool their children over the past two or three decades. I am grateful for those who worked to diminish the role of the State in this particular area, (we are homeschooling) and I hope liberties in other areas can be attained as well.

Best Regards,
Peter

[TheEditor]

Hi Peter,

You make a fair point about homeschooling. To play Devil's Advocate, consider the following possibilty:

Homeschooling freedom is great to be sure. However, even though I don't want the State to force education best left to parents, still, one must acnkowledge that along with decent homeschoolers, you get your fair share of crackpots trying to force little "Johnny" (or "Madison" depending on where you get your latte) into some sort of wild "ism". I have also considered the fact that many of those that opt to homeschool, are not always the most thoughtful Christians out there, and merely spend some schooling time shoring up a bullwork of defenses against "Satan's system", and these children, when they are exposed to legitimate and thoughtful critiques of the Bible and Christianity, are ill-prepared for a defense of the faith. Homeschooling certainly has done little to quell the tide of antitheism that currently saturates the West. Again, there are consequences to every decision, sometimes unforseen. Perhaps in anther one or two hundred years, another incarnation of Steve Gregg in his summary of this era of the church will note some things about the homeschool movement that was damaging to the church's influence. Maybe not, but maybe.

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

Brenden,

Thanks for raising this point. Yes, there are the type of parents who may fail to educate their children well, or may indoctrinate their children in a certain "-ism", or even fail to educate them at all. All the same can be said of government operated schools in spades. I think children will tend be better off under their parents direction than the State, because the parent loves the child in a way the State does not.

I think, however, the right question to begin with in addressing this matter is "Who has the right to direct the education of a child?". I would follow the natural law argument expressed in a book by a friend of mine to defend the idea that parents ought to decide, not the State. A link is below.

Real Choice, Real Freedom: In American Education, Kerry L. Morgan

Regards,
Peter

[Haole]

Once, when Christians were being tortured and fed to lions, it was VERY unpopular, to say the least, to be Christian. After Constantine, it became chic and favorable to be a Christian. It certainly didn't cost you a trip to the lion's den. As the Catholic Church grew in size and power, it just became "what you did". You were sprinkled as an infant, and you had your relationship with GOD through a priest, if at all. As the centuries passed, and society has gone morally downhill, those that liked the comfort of "fitting in" have slowly gone down as well. Always a step or two above in relation to the "crowd", but continuing to "eat with sinners", at arm's length of course. The time is coming when the break must happen, and I believe that time is now. Jesus said, "I am the way and no one enters but through me". It is not loving to cowtow to the "belief of the day" that all roads and religions lead to Heaven. Jesus didn't just hug people and eat with sinners. He spoke. He turned over tables. Does this mean he hated those Pharisees? No, he never sinned. When someone asks if homosexuality is a sin, a Christian should say, "Yes, that's what our GOD says". It's not loving to just say, "I don't judge" and leave people wishy-washy about what our beliefs are. When a doctor tells you that you have cancer and they need to operate, is that hateful? When Jesus said, "Repent and follow me" is that hateful? Christians can't let a sinful society define what love is by forcing us to look like "haters" because we disagree with them. When the people tried to beat down the door in Soddom to get at the guests, should the householder have given the guests to the people in the street? What if those people succeeded in getting a consensus that by "not" handing over the guests, the householder was being judgmental and not loving? Would the guests the be given over so as to appear more agreeable and loving? A lost, GOD-hating society needs salvation, but they don't get to define what love and hate are, and twist Christians into lukewarm believers in order to be less offensive. I can just hear someone say to Jesus, "If you'd stop using absolutes and let me do what I know I was born to do, your message would be less offensive, and I'd totally come to be a follower of yours". I think that did happen and Jesus watched the guy turn and leave. Jesus was sad at the guy leaving, but Jesus didn't change his message, nor was he sinning or hateful by not doing so.

[Haole]

^^^Wrong thread^^^ . I apologize.

[Haole]

I was commenting about this very thing to my wife just the other day. I thought it odd that Christians were pushing the law that covered the less fortunate with affordable health care. Christians that believe the less fortunate should be helped, should adopt one family per family and pay their medical costs. To me, this would show Christian virtue and a truly caring attitude. Voting this type od thing into law is also, in my opinion, the exact "setting up treasure on earth" concept as any other Christian concept. My point is, that when we force a belief such as this on the rest of the nation, it allows us not to take that much stake in the actual helping. It allows us to go on about our lives, feeling good that someone else is taking care of the poor through the government. Of course there's always the opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse. Something that a one on one relationship would all but eliminate. I believe that this is a missed opportunity for Christians to love and care for those people the way we really should. Of course this also creates an environment wherein we judge those that have more money and determine what they should be doing with their spendable money. It makes us judgmental toward those who have more. God wants ALL Christians to give, whatever level, he doesn't want us to look around and point to the guy who has twice as much as us (or a hundred times) and shirk our responsibilities under the umbrella of the other guy paying more. Should the other guy pay more? As a Christian, yes he should. As a non-Christian, we'd be imposing our morals on him, and that is what this topic is about...how we shouldn't.

[psimmond]

If you oppose the popular sins on the day, you are engaging in culture wars and we all know Christians shouldn't do this (at least that's what all the progressive blogs say).