Below is my response to this pastor,
realworldjack" wrote:There are a number of issues I would like to discuss, debate, and challenge, in this, and other posts, as far as your stance concerning such things as Christian reconstruction, theonomy, theocracy, and Christian Nationalism. However, this would be long and drawn out, and would require a lot of time, energy, and space, which would cause the conversation to become bogged down. Therefore, with that in mind I want to attempt to tackle a couple of issues, in order for the issues to be fully addressed.
In your post entitled, "Free Speech in a Christian Theocracy" you refer to Paul giving us,
"explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators who would worship Aphrodite by fornicating with prostitutes at her temple."
You are correct, and I would argue this also gives us permission to associate with the Muslim, Jew, homosexual, abortionists, etc. of our day. You go on to say, we are not given this permission, "because we are now instructed to make our peace with such idolatry—far from it." Rather, according to you,
"Our mission remains the same, which is to bring every thought captive."
Here I would have to assume you are referring to the passage in 2 Corinthians chapter 10, and you must be, because just a few sentences later you actually quote this passage. You go on to tell us, our mission as the Church "is the eradication of idolatry in the entire world." Since this is a huge endeavor you ask, how are we to accomplish such a task, and refer us to the passage mentioned above, as if this passage is explaining to us as Christians, these mighty weapons we have at our disposal, and commanding us as Christians to, "take every thought captive" and by being commanded by Paul to "take every thought captive" this would include our interaction with those outside the Church.
Okay, well let us take a look at this passage in order to determine if this is what Paul was attempting to communicate to the Corinthians? If this is not in the least the message Paul was attempting to convey to the Corinthians, then there is no way we can use the passage in order to claim we as Christians are commanded to, "take every thought captive."
So then, as we turn our attention to this passage, and begin in verse 1 of chapter 10 in 2 Corinthians, what we read there is,
"Now I, Paul, appeal to you personally by the meekness and gentleness of Christ "
So, as we can clearly see, Paul is making a plea to the Corinthians. What is the plea Paul is making? Let us continue in order to discover this. Paul continues,
"I who am meek when present among you, but am full of courage toward you when away!"
What does Paul mean here? Well, as we continue on, we will discover Paul knows there are some of the Corinthians who are questioning his authority, by claiming Paul was meek in his presence, but when Paul was away he would write these bold, and weighty letters. This was Paul's way of letting these folks know that he was fully aware of what was being said about him. Therefore, Paul goes on to say,
"now I ask that when I am present I may not have to be bold with the confidence that (I expect) I will dare to use against some who consider us to be behaving according to human standards."
Now, I do not care who you are, this is clearly a warning, and it is a warning to some in the Corinthian Church, and the Corinthians would have clearly understood it as a warning. Paul continues,
"For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards"
Okay, who is the "WE" referring too? I can assure you the "WE" is in no way referring to the Corinthians. Rather, this is a warning to the Corinthians. Paul is warning the Corinthians, "although I myself, and Timothy (Since Paul and Timothy are identified as the authors of this letter) are indeed human, we do not wage war according to human standards". Therefore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with communicating to the Corinthians that they as Christians, "do not wage war according to human standards". Nor is Paul explaining to the Corinthians they have these Spiritual weapons at their disposal. Again, it is a clear warning to the Corinthians.
As we continue Paul says,
"for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds."
The question here is, who is the "OUR" referring too? It cannot be the Corinthians, since they are not included in the "WE". In other words, this has nothing to do with teaching the Corinthians they as Christians possess these powerful Spiritual weapons.
The problem we have here is, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul teaching the Corinthians they had these powerful weapons at their disposal, and it certainly had nothing at all to do with commanding the Corinthians to, "take every thought captive" and this is very easily demonstrated by a simple reading of the text. The Corintians would have clearly understood it as a warning, and the Corinthians could not have possibly understood it any other way. If I am correct, (and I clearly am) then this passage cannot be in any way used as a command to Christians to, "take every thought captive" since it was not a command to the Corinthians.
Paul continues,
"We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God"
And this brings us to the very phrase we are dealing with,
"and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ."
So again, who is the "WE" in this passage referring too? Does it include the Corinthians? Or, is this a warning to the Corinthians? Well, it becomes extremely clear in the very next sentence.
"We are also ready to punish every act of disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete."
It is absolutely clear here! The Corinthians are not included in the "WE", therefore we cannot include us as Christians in with the "WE". Rather, the Corinthians are identified with the "YOUR" making it abundantly clear this is a warning to the Corinthians and is therefore not in any way a command to the Corinthians, nor us as Christians to "take every thought captive". This has nothing to do with Paul's train of thought, and the Corinthians could have never come away with such an idea. However, it continues on, making it even more evident. In verse 7 Paul writes,
"You are looking at outward appearances."
Who is the "YOU" referring too? Clearly it is the Corinthians, and since this is indeed the case the Corinthians were in no way included when Paul said, "we take every thought captive". The fact of the matter is, it was not a command to the Corinthians to, "take every thought captive." Rather, it was a statement of fact that Paul and Timothy had the authority, and power to come into the Corinthian Church and "take every thought captive".
The fact this whole passage was not in any way a command to the Corinthians, but rather a warning is demonstrated clearly in verses 10, and 11 where Paul says,
"because some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but his physical presence is weak and his speech is of no account.” Let such a person consider this: What we say by letters when we are absent, we also are in actions when we are present."
How in the world anyone can read this passage and come away with the idea this is a command to Christians to, "take every thought captive" is beyond my ability to understand? What is even more baffling is how one can come to the conclusion this would have anything to do with us as Christians engaging those outside the Church, when it is clear Paul is dealing with those inside the Church, and had only those inside the Church in mind as he wrote? In other words, in order for one to claim Paul was talking about anyone outside the Church in this passage, one would have to force in a meaning which clearly is not on the mind of Paul. And this brings us to the next issue concerning a passage we have already brought forth, which is the passage in which you tell us, Paul gives us,
"explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators who would worship Aphrodite by fornicating with prostitutes at her temple."
Again, you would be correct. However, giving us as Christians this permission was not at all the intent of what Paul was attempting to communicate. In other words, it was not Paul's intent in this passage to give the Corinthians this permission. This was not at all on his mind. Rather, what was on the mind of Paul as he wrote this passage was, gross immorality inside the very Church he is now addressing. Therefore, Paul refers to the former letter and says,
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world"
Paul goes on to say,
"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolator, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person."
So then, as we can clearly see, Paul's whole mindset, and focus here is to deal with this immorality inside this very Church. It had nothing whatsoever to do with giving the Corinthians, and us as Christians "explicit and free permission to keep company with idolators", even though as you say we can certainly draw this from what was said. And yet, you have Paul using this permission as some sort of, "strategy of attack." Not only is this nowhere in the text, but one also cannot even draw this conclusion from what is said, in the same way one could naturally draw the conclusion we as Christians are free to associate with immoral unbelievers. There is no way anyone can draw such a conclusion. Rather, it has to be inserted.
The problem with attempting to insert this idea that Paul was allowing us to associate with immoral unbelievers as some sort of "strategy of attack" against their idolatry is the fact that Paul actually gives us the reason we can associate with the immoral unbeliever, as opposed to the immoral believer, and that is the fact that Paul says, "For what do I have to do with judging those outside?" So then, you have Paul giving us the permission to associate with immoral unbelievers as some sort of "strategy of attack", while Paul says it is because we have no business judging those outside the Church. Therefore, it seems to me you are interpreting these passages any way you wish in order to support a certain agenda, while ignoring the plain and simple meaning Paul had as he wrote these passages.
With all the above being said, allow me to address the divisions we now have in these United States. Your answer seems to be, Christian reconstruction, theonomy, theocracy, or Christian nationalism. It really does not matter what you call it, the idea is the same. In other words, your answer seems to be we need to, and MUST, infuse God's moral law into our civil law. While it would be great if all of us as Americans were united in our theology, I am afraid this is not the case. I am also afraid it has never been promised to us this would be the case, which is exactly why Paul can tell us we can associate with the immoral of the world, otherwise we would have to leave the world. This seems to make it perfectly clear that Paul did not envision a time when there would be no immoral unbelievers in the world.
What unites us as Christians here in the U.S. in our Churches is Jesus Christ, and the Gospel. What unites Muslims in the U.S. in their Mosques, is Mohammad, and the Koran. What unites Jews in the U.S. in their synagogues, is the Torah. What unites homosexuals in the U.S. is their belief the lifestyle they lead is perfectly normal. What unites atheists is..........? Well, I am not sure the atheists even care to be united. The point is, all these groups have different things which unites them together. The problem is, all of us as Americans need to find what it is which unites us as Americans, no matter our religion, lack thereof, sexual orientation, etc. What it is which should unite all these groups together as Americans is, FREEDOM!
You see, as a Christian here in the United States, I have the freedom to freely express that I am convinced Islam is a false religion, and that Christianity is the Only One True Faith. I am free to proclaim homosexuality as a sin. I am also free to spread the Gospel to all those who are willing to listen. In other words, all of us as Americans, have the freedom to have a rigorous robust debate, exchange of ideas, and beliefs, but at the end of the day we can all embrace each other, being thankful for the freedoms we have to disagree, and still be united in some way. You would think we as Christians would be leading the way in this area. However, it seems as if we as Christians are actually leading the way in causing more division. One way or the other we better figure this out before it is too late. Or we can continue to insist that all must, and have to be united based upon our theology as Christians, and see where that will lead? I can tell you this, I am convinced this country is heading for a complete collapse, and it is not the homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, nor the left which will be the cause. Rather, it will be, Christian nationalism, and or, Christian reconstruction. But hey! As a postmillennialist a complete collapse of our society would be the aim. Correct?
My point is, I don't think they are bad people, they just have beliefs that seem particularly weird to me... like Mormons. What seems crazy to me is that mainstream evangelicals who also deny science and believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and believe in talking snakes, a world wide flood, chariots of fire that fly to heaven, and reanimated corpses 'ascending to heaven' poke fun of equally wacky JW and Mormon beliefs.
