President Obama and the Daily Distribution

[soulsearcher]

Metrosexual and absolutely unashamed of it. Which reminds me, I desperately need a pedicure.

[Russell Roberts]

Ok, Ok, brothers. Enough of the girly stuff. This is starting to sound like 'true confessions'.

[crispfin]

Ok, Ok, brothers. Enough of the girly stuff. This is starting to sound like 'true confessions'.

[Tim Elston]

There are two and only two issues that a christian should consider in voting.
1. The sanctity of life....abortion.
2. The sanctity of marriage and home.......gay rights.

1. The sanctity of life....abortion, war, healthcare.
2. The sanctity of marriage and home....ditto, gun rights
3. The poor....jobs, the economy, international aid, taxes
4. God's creation....the environment
5. Exercising dominion....infrastructure
6. Etc.

[dolfan]

There are two and only two issues that a christian should consider in voting.
1. The sanctity of life....abortion.
2. The sanctity of marriage and home.......gay rights.

1. The sanctity of life....abortion, war, healthcare.
2. The sanctity of marriage and home....ditto, gun rights
3. The poor....jobs, the economy, international aid, taxes
4. God's creation....the environment
5. Exercising dominion....infrastructure
6. Etc.

See, I'm to the point anymore where, aside from the sheer fact of the tragedy of abortion, the evil of it, I'm not concerned with the policy of it. I don't care that our government says, "Abortion is an acceptable form of birth control in America." Fact is, it doesn't have to be even if all laws point to it. WE are the people, WE make the choices, WE decide whether to abort or not abort. I'm not turning a blind eye on the culture of death created by our laws today, but I'm also keeping them both wide open on the fact that government's voice on this matter, and all those others on the list above, is wholly and completely irrelevant to the way we live and order our lives in the kingdom of God.

Let me state it another way. If government said today, "Effective immediately, DDT may be dumped into all waterways, buried in cardboard boxes and allowed to leach into the watertable, and all carcinogenic chemicals used in the production of any other material will qualify for tax credits," it wouldn't change my duties with regard to God's creation. It also does not put upon me a duty to resist that policy. God's rule, His purposes, are simply not the goal of civil authority; likewise, civil authority and its goals are not legitimate objects of good Christianship (to just make up a word, there).

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 Elston]

See, I'm to the point anymore where, aside from the sheer fact of the tragedy of abortion, the evil of it, I'm not concerned with the policy of it. I don't care that our government says, "Abortion is an acceptable form of birth control in America." Fact is, it doesn't have to be even if all laws point to it. WE are the people, WE make the choices, WE decide whether to abort or not abort. I'm not turning a blind eye on the culture of death created by our laws today, but I'm also keeping them both wide open on the fact that government's voice on this matter, and all those others on the list above, is wholly and completely irrelevant to the way we live and order our lives in the kingdom of God.

Let me state it another way. If government said today, "Effective immediately, DDT may be dumped into all waterways, buried in cardboard boxes and allowed to leach into the watertable, and all carcinogenic chemicals used in the production of any other material will qualify for tax credits," it wouldn't change my duties with regard to God's creation. It also does not put upon me a duty to resist that policy. God's rule, His purposes, are simply not the goal of civil authority; likewise, civil authority and its goals are not legitimate objects of good Christianship (to just make up a word, there).

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.

Have you read any of Luther's works on his two-kingdom doctrine? I can appreciate your concern for the church to function wholly (exclusively?) with respect to the kingdom of God, but what of Christians' role in the kingdom of old creation? Civil laws against murder, for example, must be authored by God if the state does not bear the sword in vain. But they must be authorized by God apart from the new covenant of Christ unless the old creation, and participation in it, is subsumed within the sphere of new creation, if only anticipatorily. If the new creation is already but not yet, is not citizenship also already but not yet? If all things are not yet gathered together in Christ (Eph. 1:1) and Christ himself must in some sense yet be subject to God that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28), is there not yet a dimension of Christian citizenship that is under God by virtue of the covenant of creation but not yet under Christ by virtue of the new covenant? A Christian's body, for example, is sown in corruption a natural body at death but raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44). Yes, Christians' bodies are members of Christ, thus mandating abstinence from sexual sin (1 Cor. 6:15), yet they await a final redemption until which they are subject to the old creation (Rom. 8:21-23). Romans 8:23 puts Christians and non-Christians together in the same pre-redemption-finalization sphere of having to endure the pangs of a common groaning order.

There is a danger of gnosticizing Christian experience so as to abandon the world to an irrelevant realm. My general view of Paul is that he would not go there. He possesses a tension between the eschatological imperative of the impending eschaton and the ethical imperative of interregnum. (I hold the Pauline concept of interregnum to be between the first coming of Christ and the second.) I would hate to see Christians abandon the marketplace, to abandon the world in favor of pietism or gnosticism. As Christian as Christians are, they still live dimensionally within the old creation, and I think that they, at their best, to the extent that they do not succumb to the pettiness of nationalistic, conservative or liberal ethics but embody a message of cosmic Christian and theological reign, have an important voice to speak in the affairs of human society through both word and deed, as they apply to the common order.

But, of course, you'll have to hash this out among yourselves.

[Wes]

interregnum

Great word. I had to look that up.

interregnum- The interval of time between the end of a sovereign's reign and the accession of a successor.

[pastorables]

6. Etc.

Cha-ching! The Etc. is why Obama is president elect today. As it has been stated, many who voted for him didn't have a clue concerning his policies or how they will affect America. Various idiosyncrasies like popularity, ethnicity, youthfulness, etc., were huge with regard to the outcome of Election 2008.

You are correct, my friend, the Etc. is helping to shape America as we know it. Will that be totally bad? Only time will tell.

Blessings,
pa

[Tim Elston]

Various idiosyncrasies like popularity, ethnicity, youthfulness, etc., were huge with regard to the outcome of Election 2008.

I heard a behavioral analyst say that, based on his research, it is probable that we elected Obama because we liked how his physical presence made us feel, just like we liked how Reagan's physical presence made us feel. That fits with my general belief that humans function at an unconscious "instinctual" level much more than we realize. Our rationality is secondary to our animality.

[pastorables]

Various idiosyncrasies like popularity, ethnicity, youthfulness, etc., were huge with regard to the outcome of Election 2008.

I heard a behavioral analyst say that, based on his research, it is probable that we elected Obama because we liked how his physical presence made us feel,

First of all, I didn't elect Obama.

Having said that, I don't disagree with the essence of the statement. Actually, the first few times I saw and listened to Obama as he ran for U.S. Senate, I was overwhelmed by his persona. If I remember correctly, I felt those "chill bumps" mentioned by T.D. Jakes after Obama's victory in 2004. Somehow, I knew then he would one day seek the White House. Was it the media?

Unfortunately, I was briefly being sucked in by a man's charisma, rather than understanding his principles.

pa

[Tim Elston]

First of all, I didn't elect Obama.

Yes, I know. But We the People are a nation, like it or not.

[pastorables]

First of all, I didn't elect Obama.

Yes, I know. But We the People are a nation, like it or not.

Well, we could always go to Australia with Tom. JK.

[Russell Roberts]

Tim Elston said:

There is a danger of gnosticizing Christian experience so as to abandon the world to an irrelevant realm. My general view of Paul is that he would not go there. He possesses a tension between the eschatological imperative of the impending eschaton and the ethical imperative of interregnum. (I hold the Pauline concept of interregnum to be between the first coming of Christ and the second.) I would hate to see Christians abandon the marketplace, to abandon the world in favor of pietism or gnosticism. As Christian as Christians are, they still live dimensionally within the old creation, and I think that they, at their best, to the extent that they do not succumb to the pettiness of nationalistic, conservative or liberal ethics but embody a message of cosmic Christian and theological reign, have an important voice to speak in the affairs of human society through both word and deed, as they apply to the common order.

Exactly. Tim, I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you did here. This is the problem with the dualistic dispensationalist worldview. They fail to understand that we operate in the capacity of priests - vice regents under the leadership of Jesus Christ - as agents who participate in the redemption of creation.

All things WILL be summed up in Christ.

[dolfan]

Tim Elston said:

There is a danger of gnosticizing Christian experience so as to abandon the world to an irrelevant realm. My general view of Paul is that he would not go there. He possesses a tension between the eschatological imperative of the impending eschaton and the ethical imperative of interregnum. (I hold the Pauline concept of interregnum to be between the first coming of Christ and the second.) I would hate to see Christians abandon the marketplace, to abandon the world in favor of pietism or gnosticism. As Christian as Christians are, they still live dimensionally within the old creation, and I think that they, at their best, to the extent that they do not succumb to the pettiness of nationalistic, conservative or liberal ethics but embody a message of cosmic Christian and theological reign, have an important voice to speak in the affairs of human society through both word and deed, as they apply to the common order.

Exactly. Tim, I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you did here. This is the problem with the dualistic dispensationalist worldview. They fail to understand that we operate in the capacity of priests - vice regents under the leadership of Jesus Christ - as agents who participate in the redemption of creation.

All things WILL be summed up in Christ.

What is bolded is my point, but it doesn't go far enough as stated. It is also true that "at their best", Christians do not subject themselves to the power of the present order. Not that we don't honor the authorities; we do. We do not seek, actively, an agenda that says, "This authority is not worthy. We resist." On the other hand, we should seek an agenda that says, "We organize ourselves wholly around the principles (of the gospels), the truths of the New Testament, the commands of complete sacrifice for and to one another and the determination to see to the benefit of one another as Christians." That's not disconnecting relationally from the world in some sort of separtist way. But, imagine the growth and well being of communities of people living in this way. To admit it can't be done is an admission that the kingdom is a flop. This is no pious distancing, but an honest confrontation of the realities of this created order and the one, singular offering of hope through the present and redemptive force of the body of Christ. The church simply is not acting in this way now. It isn't abandonment, it is a welcome mat.

At the same time, by continuing this sort of "take over the world" mentality operative in thoughts such as government feeding the poor because Jesus said to do it, government tending the widows because Jesus said to do it, etc., is a sell out. It falls short, even on its best hopes. It is still a tool of fallenness, a weak and pitiful response in the face of the empowered Body of Christ actually doing what Jesus said to do and that Body which Jesus gave His life to empower. We have abdicated the Christian ethic of welfare for one another by agreeing that it is the role of government to provide for it. That abdication holds even if we assist the government in providing for the common welfare. It is as corruptible and subject to decay as the very bodies of the people implementing it.

[Tim Elston]

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?