The conservative mind set as far as from a Biblical point of view is bankrupt! You can say that you want to be involved with politics but you can say that God through the Bible has mandated that you be invovled.
The proponents of religious conservatism have not proven their ideals with all that the bible has to say and what they are doing is destroying who and what the church is with their agenda.
Come visit my site and find out more
http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book.htm
Politics and the Church
Moderator: Moderators
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #2
Welcome TimPrice. We're looking forward to your input. Just one little thing: Could you please be a bit more specific about the question you want to debate? I can, more or less, guess what you mean by the conservative mindset being bankrupt, but it helps to have a clear question for debate. If it's not clear, this post might end up being moved to "Random Ramblings".
Politics and the Church
Post #3I apologize for my foolishness in not being more specific. By conservative I mean the raving religious type, e.g. Dr. James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell...
These two, amongst many others, have not been challenged about the supposed basis they claim to stand on: The Bible. They are very selective about the scripture they use and in fact leave much of what the Bible says about church/state relations out of their dogma.
The few who have challenged them appear to be sour grapes. One such is. Dean Merrill former Focus on the Family VP in his book, Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry Church. Another appears to have fallen from truth in the cases of Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas in their book, Blinded By Might. In both cases these authors fail to give the reader much of what can be done by Christians in reagrds to politics society. Neither of them take on the subject of a believers true identity, which is the power of the arguement against religious conservatism.
The religious conservative is a maniac without a cause. If they want to be conservative, go right ahead. If they want to change culture great! They just can't claim God or the Bible as a basis for doing either. God is not a white anglo-saxon protestant republican, and if they are following Him how can they acts as such! God is also not as interested in Americas perpetuity as are the religious conservative whose main motive is to maintain a place of ease safety and comfort while they are on this earth.
These two, amongst many others, have not been challenged about the supposed basis they claim to stand on: The Bible. They are very selective about the scripture they use and in fact leave much of what the Bible says about church/state relations out of their dogma.
The few who have challenged them appear to be sour grapes. One such is. Dean Merrill former Focus on the Family VP in his book, Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry Church. Another appears to have fallen from truth in the cases of Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas in their book, Blinded By Might. In both cases these authors fail to give the reader much of what can be done by Christians in reagrds to politics society. Neither of them take on the subject of a believers true identity, which is the power of the arguement against religious conservatism.
The religious conservative is a maniac without a cause. If they want to be conservative, go right ahead. If they want to change culture great! They just can't claim God or the Bible as a basis for doing either. God is not a white anglo-saxon protestant republican, and if they are following Him how can they acts as such! God is also not as interested in Americas perpetuity as are the religious conservative whose main motive is to maintain a place of ease safety and comfort while they are on this earth.
Post #4
You may be right.
But, you may be wrong.
I hold to the camp of Falwell and Dobson. I think their teachings are sound. But, I also don't really like the politics they are involved in. On th other hand, how do I or they, watch our tax dollars go to fund a licentious Progressive movement that failed from the Enlightenment, to better the world?
I wish they would follow the advice of Jesus given to His disciples and just shake off the dust from thier shoes and let this country slide to chaos. The only problem I see is what Progressives and the Neo-Liberal movement has done to the children of America. Certainly the Church and men like Dobson want to tell children that there is a vast enjoyment to being young than just sexual promiscuity. But there are few young fathers to talk with.
I really don't like GOP stances because they grind the poor to dust. I also will never align myself with the Democrats because they have been so parasitized by adherants to the age-old hatred of the more vociferous Philosophe's for Christianty. Well some of the Enlightened authors. I hold to Locke very firmly. I view the Humanists and their worship of science as having destroyed the world vastly worse than those of religious causes.
So where does a "fundamentalist" open-minded follower of Jesus turn to for political solace?
Certainly not to the disciples of Nietzsche and Marx. Their teachings have certainly been very bad for the world's poor children.
Of the two political parties in America it certainly seems to break down to one of two evils as the choice.
I am not here to defend Mr. Falewell and Mr. Dobson. They don't need it. I am here to defend the faith only once delivered to the saints.
Good topic.
But, you may be wrong.
I hold to the camp of Falwell and Dobson. I think their teachings are sound. But, I also don't really like the politics they are involved in. On th other hand, how do I or they, watch our tax dollars go to fund a licentious Progressive movement that failed from the Enlightenment, to better the world?
I wish they would follow the advice of Jesus given to His disciples and just shake off the dust from thier shoes and let this country slide to chaos. The only problem I see is what Progressives and the Neo-Liberal movement has done to the children of America. Certainly the Church and men like Dobson want to tell children that there is a vast enjoyment to being young than just sexual promiscuity. But there are few young fathers to talk with.
I really don't like GOP stances because they grind the poor to dust. I also will never align myself with the Democrats because they have been so parasitized by adherants to the age-old hatred of the more vociferous Philosophe's for Christianty. Well some of the Enlightened authors. I hold to Locke very firmly. I view the Humanists and their worship of science as having destroyed the world vastly worse than those of religious causes.
So where does a "fundamentalist" open-minded follower of Jesus turn to for political solace?
Certainly not to the disciples of Nietzsche and Marx. Their teachings have certainly been very bad for the world's poor children.
Of the two political parties in America it certainly seems to break down to one of two evils as the choice.
I am not here to defend Mr. Falewell and Mr. Dobson. They don't need it. I am here to defend the faith only once delivered to the saints.
Good topic.
Politics and the Church
Post #5AlAyeti,
Thanks for your thoughts. Because I am a purchasing agent I tend to think in matters of consequnce. What are the consequences of doing one thing or another. The same is true of ideas.
With regards to the politics in this country and the two party system, why do believers think they have to take one side other the other? Many times the religious/cultural leader of Jesus time tried to trap Him into answering one way or another and to be sure there were consequences to each. But Jesus surprisingly did/said soemthing that was a unique alternative. The state and the culture would bid you and me to lay down our uniqueness in Christ and join either side of their game. I would like to make a quote from Jacques Ellul on this very note:
The moment Christians make it a habit to understand questions, which the world has elaborated, they adopt at the same time a certain number of ideological positions, responses and doctrines which also originate in the world. It can hardly be otherwise the moment one confines oneself to the basic notions of the problem as defined by non-Christians. In doing so, Christians achieve an exact confirmation of the analysis of Marx, according to which Christianity is (merely) a superstructure (in a larger organism). When one takes world hunger as "the problem" and repeats the analyses of Castro and others, when he adapts Christianity to those views, then Marx is right. This (kind) of Christianity is then a religion which develops in terms of the world's economic and technological evolution, and whose aim is to provide ideological and moral satisfaction to those who are in fact incapable of changing the situation. It is a substitute. If is be said that Christianity should arouse people to action in changing the situation, then those who enter that work area find out very soon how useless, futile and ineffective Christianity is in all that. Further, since the Christian is involved in a gigantic, technical and "weighty" endeavor, he soon discards spiritual preoccupations and pursuits of faith, for these are now mere embarrassments and epiphenomena... To seize upon the world's problem as the world states them, is to accept the world's basic notions of them, its self-sufficient prescriptions for solutions, and to give them first place, is to become part of the dialectic trend as Karl Marx described it. This is accurate to the very extent to which Christians allow themselves to be confined, (by the world's logic) to the extent to which they cease to represent the HOLY OTHER who intervenes and who introduces miracles into history. Now acting thus, Christians are abandoning the very thing which is their function with respect to the world, and which has a bearing on the course of events in this century. That function is to introduce a "tension", an element of contradiction and conflict, which replaces the false dialectic of Marx with the true dialectic. However, this true dialectic cannot exist in the concrete situations of the world unless the Christians really have another Fatherland and are "ambassadors" for Christ, "strangers" among nations and "exiles" on the earth. If they are not that, they can keep on declaring that "Jesus is Lord", but they still limit themselves to confirming the course of the world as it is.
Mister Fallwell along with all his cohort are merely confirming the course of this world as it is. They are doing nothing to offer an alternative and the devil is laughing at how nieve believers are to play the world's game the world's way and think they are really doing something for God.
God has a way of drawing men to Himself and He will use us as tools to do this if we are attentive enough to be walkig with Him. Believers can do more than the liberals and conservatives think they want to do with all their activities by listening to God and doing what He shows us to do.
For political solace one can only go to God Himself. Going to the Democrats and the Republicans will be a disapointment every time.
I am finishing a book on the subject of Church/State relations called, The Diluted Church. It is quite different than anything available right now on the subject of church/state relations. I have left a link to my website for people to get an idea of it and also the pamphlets I offer on this same subject. Please stop by and see what you think. The book should be ready for delivery from Barnes & Noble, my site or many other outlets soon. It is sure to get a rise out of the conservative crowd.
Come on by:
Book Information Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book.htm
Pamphlets Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resou ... phlets.htm
Reading Resources: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/reading.htm
Quotes Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/quotes.htm
P.S. About the quote, I don't generally agree with Marx, Hegel or Engels, but if they said something that is true, not even God wouldn't fault them.
Thanks for your thoughts. Because I am a purchasing agent I tend to think in matters of consequnce. What are the consequences of doing one thing or another. The same is true of ideas.
With regards to the politics in this country and the two party system, why do believers think they have to take one side other the other? Many times the religious/cultural leader of Jesus time tried to trap Him into answering one way or another and to be sure there were consequences to each. But Jesus surprisingly did/said soemthing that was a unique alternative. The state and the culture would bid you and me to lay down our uniqueness in Christ and join either side of their game. I would like to make a quote from Jacques Ellul on this very note:
The moment Christians make it a habit to understand questions, which the world has elaborated, they adopt at the same time a certain number of ideological positions, responses and doctrines which also originate in the world. It can hardly be otherwise the moment one confines oneself to the basic notions of the problem as defined by non-Christians. In doing so, Christians achieve an exact confirmation of the analysis of Marx, according to which Christianity is (merely) a superstructure (in a larger organism). When one takes world hunger as "the problem" and repeats the analyses of Castro and others, when he adapts Christianity to those views, then Marx is right. This (kind) of Christianity is then a religion which develops in terms of the world's economic and technological evolution, and whose aim is to provide ideological and moral satisfaction to those who are in fact incapable of changing the situation. It is a substitute. If is be said that Christianity should arouse people to action in changing the situation, then those who enter that work area find out very soon how useless, futile and ineffective Christianity is in all that. Further, since the Christian is involved in a gigantic, technical and "weighty" endeavor, he soon discards spiritual preoccupations and pursuits of faith, for these are now mere embarrassments and epiphenomena... To seize upon the world's problem as the world states them, is to accept the world's basic notions of them, its self-sufficient prescriptions for solutions, and to give them first place, is to become part of the dialectic trend as Karl Marx described it. This is accurate to the very extent to which Christians allow themselves to be confined, (by the world's logic) to the extent to which they cease to represent the HOLY OTHER who intervenes and who introduces miracles into history. Now acting thus, Christians are abandoning the very thing which is their function with respect to the world, and which has a bearing on the course of events in this century. That function is to introduce a "tension", an element of contradiction and conflict, which replaces the false dialectic of Marx with the true dialectic. However, this true dialectic cannot exist in the concrete situations of the world unless the Christians really have another Fatherland and are "ambassadors" for Christ, "strangers" among nations and "exiles" on the earth. If they are not that, they can keep on declaring that "Jesus is Lord", but they still limit themselves to confirming the course of the world as it is.
Mister Fallwell along with all his cohort are merely confirming the course of this world as it is. They are doing nothing to offer an alternative and the devil is laughing at how nieve believers are to play the world's game the world's way and think they are really doing something for God.
God has a way of drawing men to Himself and He will use us as tools to do this if we are attentive enough to be walkig with Him. Believers can do more than the liberals and conservatives think they want to do with all their activities by listening to God and doing what He shows us to do.
For political solace one can only go to God Himself. Going to the Democrats and the Republicans will be a disapointment every time.
I am finishing a book on the subject of Church/State relations called, The Diluted Church. It is quite different than anything available right now on the subject of church/state relations. I have left a link to my website for people to get an idea of it and also the pamphlets I offer on this same subject. Please stop by and see what you think. The book should be ready for delivery from Barnes & Noble, my site or many other outlets soon. It is sure to get a rise out of the conservative crowd.
Come on by:
Book Information Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book.htm
Pamphlets Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resou ... phlets.htm
Reading Resources: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/reading.htm
Quotes Page: http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources/quotes.htm
P.S. About the quote, I don't generally agree with Marx, Hegel or Engels, but if they said something that is true, not even God wouldn't fault them.
Post #6
I try to use empiricism and analytical thought to "judge" most things and leave my Bible firmly closed on most political and social issues.
But I do so love "Test all things and hold firmly to the truth."
Jesus, Paul and John Locke motivate me there.
So I'll ask you a question on comparison. A purchasing agent should be a good person to ask.
James Dobson, Jerry Falwell (and I'll throw in Hank Hanegraf) OR John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong or Jim Wallis?
Which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if you prefer), Biblical perspective?
I've already made my judgment quite clear on Dobson and Falwell but I am not set in stone on any human perspective all that much.
Why wouldn't I be a better Christian if I was conservative?
"Conservative," only in the usage of the word as it applies POST Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative timeframe.
I am not a Rep or Dem.
But I do so love "Test all things and hold firmly to the truth."
Jesus, Paul and John Locke motivate me there.
So I'll ask you a question on comparison. A purchasing agent should be a good person to ask.
James Dobson, Jerry Falwell (and I'll throw in Hank Hanegraf) OR John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong or Jim Wallis?
Which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if you prefer), Biblical perspective?
I've already made my judgment quite clear on Dobson and Falwell but I am not set in stone on any human perspective all that much.
Why wouldn't I be a better Christian if I was conservative?
"Conservative," only in the usage of the word as it applies POST Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative timeframe.
I am not a Rep or Dem.
Politics and the Church
Post #7AlAyeti,
You propose an interesting question. The answer to, "which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if
you prefer), Biblical perspective?" would depend on the subject.
First of all I don't know all the people you mention, Crossnan specifically. Spong I have read a few things about but I have not read any of his material. From the sounds of what I have heard, he would not be my top choice of who to read next. Hanegraf turns me off because he is many times a "christian" Dr. Laura, who rudely cuts people off in conversation. The other turn off is that he uses 500 words to make his arguement sound bigger than it is. Aside from this he is a biblist (neo-pharisee). Jim Wallis is interesting. I have read section of his newset book, God's Politics. He asks some tough questions and make a few good points. He does more to incorporate the gospel with social policy than Dobson and Falwell but I am not sold on him. He argue from the perspective of belonging to the society which Jesus and His follower definately did not. We already have a fair understanding of Dobson and Falwell.
I can not advocate or rail against any of these or all of these for the reasons I have mentioned above.
I will propound a question for you
You propose an interesting question. The answer to, "which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if
you prefer), Biblical perspective?" would depend on the subject.
First of all I don't know all the people you mention, Crossnan specifically. Spong I have read a few things about but I have not read any of his material. From the sounds of what I have heard, he would not be my top choice of who to read next. Hanegraf turns me off because he is many times a "christian" Dr. Laura, who rudely cuts people off in conversation. The other turn off is that he uses 500 words to make his arguement sound bigger than it is. Aside from this he is a biblist (neo-pharisee). Jim Wallis is interesting. I have read section of his newset book, God's Politics. He asks some tough questions and make a few good points. He does more to incorporate the gospel with social policy than Dobson and Falwell but I am not sold on him. He argue from the perspective of belonging to the society which Jesus and His follower definately did not. We already have a fair understanding of Dobson and Falwell.
I can not advocate or rail against any of these or all of these for the reasons I have mentioned above.
I will propound a question for you
Post #8
AlAyeti,
You propose an interesting question. The answer to, "which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if
you prefer), Biblical perspective?" would depend on the subject.
First of all I don't know all the people you mentioned, Crossnan specifically. Spong I have read a few things about but I have not read any of his material directly. From the sounds of what I have heard, he would not be my top choice of who to read next. Hanegraf turns me off because he is many times a "christian" Dr. Laura, who rudely cuts people off in conversation. The other turn off is that he uses $500 dollar words to make his argument sound bigger than it really is. Aside from this he is a biblist (neo-pharisee). Jim Wallis is interesting. I have read sections of his newest book, God's Politics. He asks some tough questions and makes a few good points. He does more to incorporate the gospel with social policy than Dobson and Falwell but I am not sold on him. He argues from the perspective of belonging to the society which Jesus and His followers definitely did not. We have to be careful not to render worthless the scriptures in our attempt to support contemporary situations. We tend to look at the Bible from our perspective rather than our sitations from the perspective of the Bible.
We already have a fair understanding of Dobson and Falwell and don't need to say much more.
I can not advocate or rail against any of these or all of these for the reasons I have mentioned above.
I will propound a question for you.
What do you think of people like Richard Wurmbrand or Bruce Olson in the modern era or Peter Waldo, J.A. Comenius, Zinzendorf? Each of these men upheld an evangelical zeal to see people know God while also ministering to peoples' physical needs. And they did this from outside of belonging to the societies they worked in.
Few in modern times, much less America, have been able to peel themselves away from being part of the state or society. The offer of rights from the state is so powerful and anesthetizing that few are willing to lay down these rights to fully become all God want us to be. We still crave societies' acceptance and approval and the protection of the state to belong to its circus as a sideshow. We think they should accept us.
Jesus said, if we follow Him we WILL BE, not might be or can be or maybe not be, persecuted. Few in this country could ever seriously claim true persecution on behalf of having followed Christ. The most persecution the vast majority of people ever face is the equivalent of a kid on school recess having another kid stick their tongue out at him.
This says a lot about who we really are and what we are really doing. We must be teaching a different gospel because that is the only reason people aren't out persecuting followers of Christ. Or maybe we aren't really following Christ. In either case the lack of persecution we face is a sign that we aren't doing what it right. That's empirical evidence for ya.
Lets talk about being biblical outside of the presupposition that the state and society should recognize our belief in God and give us room at their table to practice saying we believe in God. Lets talk about being an alternative to the Left ot the Right and start being the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.
If you have never read about any of these guys I mentioned above I would encourage you to go to my site, http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources.htm, and go to the resources page under READING. There will be information on all those that I mentioned and more.
Back to you
TP
P.S. Some other people who have interesting ideas about church/state relations are: Stanley Hauerwas and Jacques Ellul. I have read their work and I agree with the more than I disagree.
You propose an interesting question. The answer to, "which of those men seem to align themselves with a more accurate, or literal (if
you prefer), Biblical perspective?" would depend on the subject.
First of all I don't know all the people you mentioned, Crossnan specifically. Spong I have read a few things about but I have not read any of his material directly. From the sounds of what I have heard, he would not be my top choice of who to read next. Hanegraf turns me off because he is many times a "christian" Dr. Laura, who rudely cuts people off in conversation. The other turn off is that he uses $500 dollar words to make his argument sound bigger than it really is. Aside from this he is a biblist (neo-pharisee). Jim Wallis is interesting. I have read sections of his newest book, God's Politics. He asks some tough questions and makes a few good points. He does more to incorporate the gospel with social policy than Dobson and Falwell but I am not sold on him. He argues from the perspective of belonging to the society which Jesus and His followers definitely did not. We have to be careful not to render worthless the scriptures in our attempt to support contemporary situations. We tend to look at the Bible from our perspective rather than our sitations from the perspective of the Bible.
We already have a fair understanding of Dobson and Falwell and don't need to say much more.
I can not advocate or rail against any of these or all of these for the reasons I have mentioned above.
I will propound a question for you.
What do you think of people like Richard Wurmbrand or Bruce Olson in the modern era or Peter Waldo, J.A. Comenius, Zinzendorf? Each of these men upheld an evangelical zeal to see people know God while also ministering to peoples' physical needs. And they did this from outside of belonging to the societies they worked in.
Few in modern times, much less America, have been able to peel themselves away from being part of the state or society. The offer of rights from the state is so powerful and anesthetizing that few are willing to lay down these rights to fully become all God want us to be. We still crave societies' acceptance and approval and the protection of the state to belong to its circus as a sideshow. We think they should accept us.
Jesus said, if we follow Him we WILL BE, not might be or can be or maybe not be, persecuted. Few in this country could ever seriously claim true persecution on behalf of having followed Christ. The most persecution the vast majority of people ever face is the equivalent of a kid on school recess having another kid stick their tongue out at him.
This says a lot about who we really are and what we are really doing. We must be teaching a different gospel because that is the only reason people aren't out persecuting followers of Christ. Or maybe we aren't really following Christ. In either case the lack of persecution we face is a sign that we aren't doing what it right. That's empirical evidence for ya.
Lets talk about being biblical outside of the presupposition that the state and society should recognize our belief in God and give us room at their table to practice saying we believe in God. Lets talk about being an alternative to the Left ot the Right and start being the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.
If you have never read about any of these guys I mentioned above I would encourage you to go to my site, http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/resources.htm, and go to the resources page under READING. There will be information on all those that I mentioned and more.
Back to you
TP
P.S. Some other people who have interesting ideas about church/state relations are: Stanley Hauerwas and Jacques Ellul. I have read their work and I agree with the more than I disagree.
Post #9
"Few in modern times, much less America, have been able to peel themselves away from being part of the state or society. The offer of rights from the state is so powerful and anesthetizing that few are willing to lay down these rights to fully become all God want us to be. We still crave societies' acceptance and approval and the protection of the state to belong to its circus as a sideshow. We think they should accept us."
WOW.
Let me repeat . . . WOW. I wish I could stop the urge to fight back when bullied by mindless secularists. I just can't, but I want to.
On those persecuted, I would need a lot of work for the Lord to even think about me. Again you are right on that point.
But didn't Paul indeed use the political system to get the word out? It belittled him and killed him, but he still used it.
Jesus was first as an example of this as well wasn't He?
On your reference authors? I'm off to study. No not just to show I'm approved, just to know about the people you mention.
WOW.
Let me repeat . . . WOW. I wish I could stop the urge to fight back when bullied by mindless secularists. I just can't, but I want to.
On those persecuted, I would need a lot of work for the Lord to even think about me. Again you are right on that point.
But didn't Paul indeed use the political system to get the word out? It belittled him and killed him, but he still used it.
Jesus was first as an example of this as well wasn't He?
On your reference authors? I'm off to study. No not just to show I'm approved, just to know about the people you mention.
Post #10
AlAyeti,
Yes it is difficult to choke back the human desire to strangle some secularist who is ignorant and mouthy. Look at Jesus and the religious ninnies He put up with, after He was the Son of God and they knew it but refuse to give way to Him. They were self-absorbed, arrogant, educated and worried about all the wrong things and yet Christ endured them and answered them when it fit His agenda and mocked them at other times and said nothing at other times.
Jesus said, "I do nothing of my own will, but I do and say as I see the Father doing and saying..." This is of course a paraphrase from several texts in the Gospel of John. Are we listening to God, or is God muzzled by a closed book?
Yes, Paul did use the political system. But he did it according to direction from above in Acts 23 and he did it with shrewdness in Acts 16. You can read many times in altercations with authorities Paul used the system from their understanding of it, but for Gospel purposes. He did not used it like a ownership that the state must watch out for his rights. He used it as a tool. If he used it as a right to protect himself, he would not have taken a savage beating in Philippi. He would have gone around telling everybody he was a Roman Citizen...
Jesus did not use the political system. In fact he did not answer many questions it leveled at Him, but yet He dialoged about other things with those same authority figures.
I am curious about your response to those people I mentioned. I think you are qualified and astute. What about these guys? Do you know anything about them?
I am very busy with trying to get a book out. I have to pull myself back from reading everything that comes to my attention because I can't read it all.
How is the Lord leading you?
TP
Yes it is difficult to choke back the human desire to strangle some secularist who is ignorant and mouthy. Look at Jesus and the religious ninnies He put up with, after He was the Son of God and they knew it but refuse to give way to Him. They were self-absorbed, arrogant, educated and worried about all the wrong things and yet Christ endured them and answered them when it fit His agenda and mocked them at other times and said nothing at other times.
Jesus said, "I do nothing of my own will, but I do and say as I see the Father doing and saying..." This is of course a paraphrase from several texts in the Gospel of John. Are we listening to God, or is God muzzled by a closed book?
Yes, Paul did use the political system. But he did it according to direction from above in Acts 23 and he did it with shrewdness in Acts 16. You can read many times in altercations with authorities Paul used the system from their understanding of it, but for Gospel purposes. He did not used it like a ownership that the state must watch out for his rights. He used it as a tool. If he used it as a right to protect himself, he would not have taken a savage beating in Philippi. He would have gone around telling everybody he was a Roman Citizen...
Jesus did not use the political system. In fact he did not answer many questions it leveled at Him, but yet He dialoged about other things with those same authority figures.
I am curious about your response to those people I mentioned. I think you are qualified and astute. What about these guys? Do you know anything about them?
I am very busy with trying to get a book out. I have to pull myself back from reading everything that comes to my attention because I can't read it all.
How is the Lord leading you?
TP
