President Obama and the Daily Distribution

[AllenNope]

The issues of the poor , sick and imprisoned are taken care of in the word.

WE, the Christians, are supposed to do that....not the government.

I do and expect other Christians and the church body to do also. I do not expect the government to legislate sin. If they make laws that line up with my hopefully biblical views then I support it completely. To say that abortion and gay rights are the only issues to be concerned with is a little naive (which you are not), narrow minded (which we are all sometimes) or just someone just paying games ( which you do often).

No matter what I would like to know your thoughts and other people’s ideas regarding the government legislating sin?

[Dr. Ron]

Allen,

The government is constantly legislating sin. It is doing so each time it removes a "religious" freedom based on the assumption that that freedom is not guaranteed by God's sovergnity but rather by the benevolence of the government.....ie. abortion. gay marriage...ect,

I understand why many of you feel that I am being naive in my view, however, the two issues I submit are the catalyst for all the others.

When the sanctity of life is lost or thrown on the dung heap of basic freedoms, it sets all the other elements in motion. It then pre-supposes that life is not precious, therefore, it is the government's responsibility to decide what part is precious and what part is a hinderance to the global good. That then colors all decision about welfare, medical attention, ect.....and Zero has proven by his voting record that he feels it is the government's role to make those distinctions and sees "unwanted" babies as "expendible " tissue so that OUR lives ( his daughter's ) might be quality. That position speads a virus of legislative decisions that mock the existance of the sanctity of life.

When the sanctity of marriage is vilified as archaic it has the same outcome.....

So....I ask you all to consider my answers in light of depth of meaning ....not in a simplistic mindset.

[dolfan]

The proper order of life is for God's people in whole community with one another to lavish His love and His ways on each other with all of our current resources, to expand that way of life by preaching this message and demonstrating it in this way, and thereby to live out the proper stewardship of the creation. We cannot, will not, do not accomplish that by institutions of civil authority that are not founded by and through the church of Jesus.

Tim,

I'm coming back to your original response because it addresses the nexus between your view of the Christian imperative and of the civil order. It seems to me that your last statement contains a refusal--"will not"--to participate in the stewardship of creation through any other vehicle but the church. Such a refusal, in order for it to be ethical, would have to presume that the church is the only divinely authorized vehicle in the current age through which stewardship of creation is legitimate. Governments and institutions other than the Christian church would be illegitimate, as touching the stewardship of creation to effect the common good, and community per se would be illegitimate except as constituted in the church.

This position, which seems to be a necessary inference of your statement, radicalizes the notion of the new covenant to subsume all creation in the current age, prior to the final eschaton, and it delegitimates all social, communal, governmental, legal, economic, and cultural pursuits and goals of humankind outside the boundaries of the new covenant community, the church. Thus, commerce outside the church is illegitimate to the common order; construction outside the Christian community is illegitimate; law enforcement; employment; marriage; military activity; health care; postal delivery; child care; education; politics; legislation--all cultural, social and governmental activity outside the church is unauthorized and thus illegitimate in the common era if the Christian mandate is to refuse to participate in the stewardship of creation except through institutions "founded by and through the church of Jesus Christ."

Do you believe that this is a fair inference from your statement, as made? Why or why not?

No, not exactly. To the point that the "will not" is a refusal, it isn't. It is a realization of the futility of the present order and a predictive statement. It will not happen because it cannot happen. I wouldn't argue that the institutions of the present order are illegitimate because they are not originated by the church; I would argue that the church is actually ignoring God's mandate until the people comprising it are, in fact, doing what Jesus said and are, in fact, doing what the NT teaches. My point is that no civil authority can accomplish this, therefore it will not accomplish it. The only kingdom to which Christians are ultimately loyal is the kingdom of God. Not that we are not loyal to our nations; we mustn't disobey the laws of our nation to the extent they do not prevent us from observing and obeying the rule of God in its fullness, for example. But, as believers of the way of Jesus, it is easy to see that the redistribution of wealth, for example, is not the tool of the kingdom to accomplish the kind of commonality idealized and, in fact, taught as practical doctrine, in the New Testament. It is woefully inadequate in its type and nature as a tool of justice and love; it is also ill-conceived as a practical matter as it disincentivises production in an economy where greed is the fuel (and, that isn't a judgment, just a fact). As a proposed replacement for greed-motivated economic growth, it is wholly false and offers no value that is any closer to the values of the gospels as a reason to follow it as opposed to following greed-driven capitalism. And, if it were closer, it wouldn't necessarily be better. Approximations are not sufficient.

As to the church vs. present, secular order, I would say that the accoutrements of this order, for lack of a better way of framing the thought, are legitimate simply because the church is not living out the mandate of Jesus. There must be something. And, I think we can choose among all the possible somethings and combinations of them as we like, and this is actually what we do. The tragedy is that no one is stepping up in community to insist that Christians live here in the way of Jesus. And, so we wind up with political preferences, power struggles, and choosing what we think is best among all the policies and structures of our time. We get pitted against one another, and we lamely offer up justifications of why any one or more of these selections is biblically preferable to any other, as if getting close counts.

[Tim Elston]

As to the church vs. present, secular order, I would say that the accoutrements of this order, for lack of a better way of framing the thought, are legitimate simply because the church is not living out the mandate of Jesus. There must be something. And, I think we can choose among all the possible somethings and combinations of them as we like, and this is actually what we do. The tragedy is that no one is stepping up in community to insist that Christians live here in the way of Jesus. And, so we wind up with political preferences, power struggles, and choosing what we think is best among all the policies and structures of our time. We get pitted against one another, and we lamely offer up justifications of why any one or more of these selections is biblically preferable to any other, as if getting close counts.

But aren't some policies, in fact, better than others with respect to Christian values? Is a policy that considers the conditions of the poor worse for being "socialist" than is a policy that enriches the rich for being "capitalist"? I can understand a logic that holds one economic policy to be superior to another with respect to a Christian value or set of values, but I cannot understand a pathos that pits one Christian value against another. The impact of an economic policy on the poor and working poor should weigh as a valid concern for which Christians have a demonstrable sympathy. I do not think it lame to suggest that a deregulation by which the super rich embezzle the life savings of working class retirees, for example, is inferior to a regulation that imposes a property tax on football stadiums to support inner city youth programs. Neither is it lame to consider an economic system that alleviates poverty preferable to one that does not.

Your concern for a Christian ideal that transcends policy per se is admirable, but to denigrate the evaluation of and support for specific policies in terms of Christian values is to insist on the ideal to the detriment of the real. If Christian values do assign a sanctity to life, then why is a policy against abortion not preferable to a policy that allows it? If Christian values do tend toward sympathy for the poor and working poor, then why is a tax structure that makes modest provisions for them not preferable to one that does not?

The application that I can take from your point is the lameness of a people with a claimed set of moral values opting instead for a political-economic ideology that either is irrespective of those values or in contradiction to them. It is fair to argue for or against a given policy in support of a set of claimed values, but it is hypocritical to claim that set of values yet scorn policies that make them the point of concern. And it is a cop out to duck the criticism by claiming a transcendence that wasn't transcendent enough to refrain from criticizing a policy in terms of Christian values in the first place.

[dolfan]

As to the church vs. present, secular order, I would say that the accoutrements of this order, for lack of a better way of framing the thought, are legitimate simply because the church is not living out the mandate of Jesus. There must be something. And, I think we can choose among all the possible somethings and combinations of them as we like, and this is actually what we do. The tragedy is that no one is stepping up in community to insist that Christians live here in the way of Jesus. And, so we wind up with political preferences, power struggles, and choosing what we think is best among all the policies and structures of our time. We get pitted against one another, and we lamely offer up justifications of why any one or more of these selections is biblically preferable to any other, as if getting close counts.

But aren't some policies, in fact, better than others with respect to Christian values? Is a policy that considers the conditions of the poor worse for being "socialist" than is a policy that enriches the rich for being "capitalist"? I can understand a logic that holds one economic policy to be superior to another with respect to a Christian value or set of values, but I cannot understand a pathos that pits one Christian value against another. The impact of an economic policy on the poor and working poor should weigh as a valid concern for which Christians have a demonstrable sympathy. I do not think it lame to suggest that a deregulation by which the super rich embezzle the life savings of working class retirees, for example, is inferior to a regulation that imposes a property tax on football stadiums to support inner city youth programs. Neither is it lame to consider an economic system that alleviates poverty preferable to one that does not.

Your concern for a Christian ideal that transcends policy per se is admirable, but to denigrate the evaluation of and support for specific policies in terms of Christian values is to insist on the ideal to the detriment of the real. If Christian values do assign a sanctity to life, then why is a policy against abortion not preferable to a policy that allows it? If Christian values do tend toward sympathy for the poor and working poor, then why is a tax structure that makes modest provisions for them not preferable to one that does not?

The application that I can take from your point is the lameness of a people with a claimed set of moral values opting instead for a political-economic ideology that either is irrespective of those values or in contradiction to them. It is fair to argue for or against a given policy in support of a set of claimed values, but it is hypocritical to claim that set of values yet scorn policies that make them the point of concern. And it is a cop out to duck the criticism by claiming a transcendence that wasn't transcendent enough to refrain from criticizing a policy in terms of Christian values in the first place.

I'm honestly hesitant to say that one policy is better than another with respect to Christian values. My hesitancy is not because I'm slow to admit of it in objective terms, but because the approximation of a policy toward "good" is too often "good enough" for Christians such that we are content to let secular government set the tenor and pace of community life.

And, when I say we "lamely suggest" one policy or preference over another, it isn't that the policy itself is lame (although in comparison to the New Testament "ideal", to borrow your term, it is) as much as it is that we weakly defer to the government and the societal structures of the present order as providing the answers to these moral failures to which we are parties.

I don't want to be understood, although it appears I'm failing in that desire!, to be an advocate for unplugging from the broader world. Nothing could be further from the truth. We ought to be informing it and it ought to find an eager and humble example in our behavior, not vice versa. Yet, even that is not sufficient. Our purpose is not merely to make better politics and bring a form of justice to the world, but to BE and live and demonstrate the particular kind of justice in the particular kind of community to which we are called by Jesus. That justice, that community, finds no analog. And, while it is exponentially and maybe infinitely better for the current order to express itself in terms of values that are "more Christian", it still falls short of the kingdom now that we are actually supposed to be living and doing.