tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post112343620333326567..comments2024-03-12T06:18:44.998-07:00Comments on Brain Cramps for God: Kingdom Character and Secular ResponsibilityJohn Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17015850035301812424noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123691165118661922005-08-10T09:26:00.000-07:002005-08-10T09:26:00.000-07:00'Kingdom character' is a phrase with some problems...<I>'Kingdom character' is a phrase with some problems</I><BR/><BR/>What?JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123690906415331782005-08-10T09:21:00.000-07:002005-08-10T09:21:00.000-07:00I do not think we disagree at all actually. I do n...I do not think we disagree at all actually. I do not think you actually build your Christian character by being concerned about yourself much at all. One of those amazing things is that the more we become "poor in spirit" and "merciful"; the more we put ourselves last and others first; and the more we die to self to live for Christ - the more we begin to develop our true personality and self, as God envisions us, for the first time.<BR/><BR/>We have to take our eyes off of ourselves to become our true self.<BR/><BR/>I realized in my very disjointed last comment that I picked examples which were morally unclear. We are not (I hope) going to see a Christian United States. Or a Christian Party of America to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. We will have Christian politicians who have to balance their beliefs with those of their constituents who elected them; and have to discern what is the best way to deliver charity and mercy as social policy rather than individual act. You and I have to figure this out too.JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123688791081932782005-08-10T08:46:00.000-07:002005-08-10T08:46:00.000-07:00John--I don't necessarily disagree with your descr...John--I don't necessarily disagree with your description of Christianity (although 'Kingdom character' is a phrase with some problems, I think), but I don't think it does justice to the fulness of the issue.<BR/><BR/>In his book <I>Shantung Compound</I>, about a Japanese internment camp in China during WWII, Langdon Gilkey talks about the delivery of a vast number of care packages from the American Red Cross. The governing body of the prisoners (including British, Greeks, Russians, etc.) wanted to distribute the parcels evenly among all the camp. Some vocal Americans objected, claiming that as gifts from the American Red Cross, they belonged only to the American prisoners. So on their protest, the Japanese halted the distribution. Gilkey was one of the Americans arguing for an even distribution, and he tried to persuade a missionary to take their position. The missionary refused, saying that an equal distribution would be without merit, because it would be forced. The Americans could and should voluntarily give up some part of their packages, but it had to be theirs to give, or it would not be to anyone's credit. The Japanese ended up giving every family one package and then shipping the rest to a different camp.<BR/><BR/>It is good to be concerned about the upbuilding of one's character, but it is infinitely more important to be concerned about the welfare of one's neighbor. While it is certainly true that Christ gives us no blueprints for an anti-poverty program, he also gives us no excuse for being indifferent to poverty as a public issue (as opposed to a matter of private charity). I agree entirely that we will not see a Christian politics or even a Christian politician, but we can't slough off Christ's commands just because we're dealing with a realm in which no one gets credit and in which no character but that of our society is at stake.Benjamin Dueholmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12223314091512163603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123679661272015762005-08-10T06:14:00.000-07:002005-08-10T06:14:00.000-07:00JCHFleetguy,Great blog, sir! Christianity, as opp...JCHFleetguy,<BR/><BR/>Great blog, sir! <BR/><BR/><I>Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, doesn't give us law as much as it tries to give us Kingdom character (laws written on our heart not stone) that can drive our actions. The Bible doesn't give us a Christian foreign policy; the outlines of a Christian poverty program; or particular directions on how to clothe the naked. It gives us a character and tells us to do these things.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you. I'd like to make a small observation, though.<BR/><BR/>Rather than say, "Christianity, as opposed to Judaism", I would probably say something like "orthodox Christianity, as opposed to orthodox Judaism", or better yet, "the New Testament, as opposed to the Old Testament".<BR/><BR/>Congratulations again on your blog. I look forward to coming back.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990765024996768485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123609062262925042005-08-09T10:37:00.000-07:002005-08-09T10:37:00.000-07:00I titled the piece Kingdom Character because this ...I titled the piece Kingdom Character because this is deeper to me than virtue. There is that old saying: "Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny."<BR/><BR/>This elevates the Sermon on the Mount. Character is not built overnight; and in the case of most of these traits not in this lifetime - they will be perfected in our eternity with God. They are built by doing as well as believing. There can be no separation between our character and our actions.<BR/><BR/>If I were a politician there are things my character would not allow me to support; as well as things I would have to support. In voting for a politician, I may have to weigh issues: Candidate A is anti-abortion and pro-death penalty; while Candidate B is pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Neither has an opinion on foreign aid, or serving the poor, that is "quite right" but both may "do good". One of them seems a little personally sketchy morally.<BR/><BR/>My biggest problem with the death penalty (other than its irreversibilty - no small matter considering the plethora of DNA inspired reversals lately) is that it cuts off the possibility that someone can make a decision to turn to God and Christ for a new life. If they do not believe, I do not want to stop the ability to "sow seeds, water plants, and harvest". That said, can I really think it is OK to kill the Christians (now that their eternity is taken care of); and keep the pagans alive just in case. Certainly that would end insincere conversions among prisoners.<BR/><BR/>Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, doesn't give us law as much as it tries to give us Kingdom character (laws written on our heart not stone) that can drive our actions. The Bible doesn't give us a Christian foreign policy; the outlines of a Christian poverty program; or particular directions on how to clothe the naked. It gives us a character and tells us to do these things.<BR/><BR/>I call this blog "Brain Cramps for God" because I post on issues that give me one. After English Christians convinced England to end the English slave trade; they then pushed for, and acquired, English naval action to intervene in the entire Atlantic slave trade; and the Arab slave trade. They were willing to have the British government go to war and kill slavers to end this evil.<BR/><BR/>Certainly Jesus was not always "peaceful". There were two temple events (which I have a hard time believing caused no physical injury - though I cannot prove they did); as well as the damning eternally of whole cities that didn't recieve His message. Of course, as God incarnate He could judge, and punish, because He was the subject of harm of sin. We are not.<BR/><BR/>In the Sermon, some laws (adultery and murder) He deepened and raised the bar on; at least one he stood on its head (eye for an eye) and apparently reversed.<BR/><BR/>Big cramp. Thanks for the massage.JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123605866449652442005-08-09T09:44:00.000-07:002005-08-09T09:44:00.000-07:00Let's turn this around and look at Jesus's positiv...Let's turn this around and look at Jesus's positive commands, not just his proscriptions. We are commanded to give to all who ask, to give our possessions to the poor and follow Christ, to visit the prisoners, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. Is it enough for us to view these as 'personal' habits and virtues unconnected to our role as members of a society? Or does Jesus expect us to use our public influence--whatever little of it we may have--to make sure that we collectively do these things as well?<BR/><BR/>For example, individuals and congregations can do a lot through charitable giving to stem famine (i.e., feed the hungry). This action cannot, however, as far as I can see, do what is needed to prevent famine from being a continual occurence, including changing federal trade and agricultural policies, the nature and quantity of development aid, and enforcement of environmental norms that prevent drought and crop loss in the first place. These things require "the power of the sword," to be anachronistic. Are we, as Christians, allowed to be agnostic on how that power is used so long as we are personally charitable? Obviously I think not, but if others disagree I would be interested to hear.Benjamin Dueholmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12223314091512163603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123555614219144842005-08-08T19:46:00.000-07:002005-08-08T19:46:00.000-07:00But then why couch it terms of Old Testament law t...<I>But then why couch it terms of Old Testament law that concerns crime and punishment? That's precisely what Jesus did here.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not a theologian but perhaps because he was speaking to his audience? How would the Jews of the time be most easily able to relate to and understand what he said? By couching it in the framework of laws and traditions they were already familiar with.<BR/><BR/>And as far as the death penalty goes, your right, it's a contradiction. But thats often the difference between feeling and thinking and is another good reason not to have the death penalty.Patrick (gryph)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14528184340065689605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123530476694262512005-08-08T12:47:00.000-07:002005-08-08T12:47:00.000-07:00Patrick:When Jesus talks about turning the other c...<B>Patrick:</B><BR/><BR/><I>When Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, I've always read that as a caution against acting in self-righteousness toward another. ... I think the passage is about the evil of revenge even more than the evil of violence. Revenge is the ultimate impermissible act, not violence.</I><BR/><BR/>But then why couch it terms of Old Testament law that concerns crime and punishment? That's precisely what Jesus did here.<BR/><BR/><I>And also, even though I still believe the death penalty to be at times to a just punishment, it's also simply not a legal power I'm comfortable trusting a government of any kind to have.</I><BR/><BR/>Your hypothetical support of the death penalty is hard to square with your violence-as-revenge-is-impermissible idea. The death penalty is the ultimate form of revenge. After all, it rectifies nothing, so it can't be justice. It may be societal revenge rather than individual revenge, but it is revenge nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>In the more extreme cases, like McVeigh's case, justice was done a disservice by executing him. Life in prison would have been a more appropriate punishment; death let him off too easy in my estimation.<BR/><BR/><B>Benjamin:</B><BR/><BR/>Well said.TGirschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296761462380289467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123516082672686262005-08-08T08:48:00.000-07:002005-08-08T08:48:00.000-07:00I don't share the view that the Sermon on the Moun...I don't share the view that the Sermon on the Mount is a sort of manual of personal virtues. I don't think Jesus was dividing our private conduct from our lives in society--saying, in effect, that one was bound to bear insults in private but to take up arms for the government. He was not a just war theorist. If we are to fight wars--just, unjust, or ambivalent--we are going to have to do it without Christ's blessing or sanction. There is no textual evidence for Christ endorsing any kind of war.<BR/><BR/>The arguments above were the basis for Luther's 'Two Realms' doctrine, in which Christ's commands to pacifism (and poverty, which is maybe more unpopular) are in paradox with divine commands to family and communal life. One may lay down one's own life, Luther said, but one may not abdicate one's responsibility to protect a family (in the case of a father) or a people (in the case of the prince). This does not mean, however, that measures like war and capital punishment are somehow free of sin--they are not. But so long as the world endures in its present state, we will have to live with that sin if we are to live at all.<BR/><BR/>This is not necessarily my view, but it's worth mentioning. In any case, I think the individualism of American society has bled into our religion such that we view Christ as speaking to individuals when he was using the plural form of address and indicting (and commanding) humankind generally.Benjamin Dueholmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12223314091512163603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123486129209199252005-08-08T00:28:00.000-07:002005-08-08T00:28:00.000-07:00Random thoughts:It's not possible for a society or...Random thoughts:<BR/><BR/>It's not possible for a society or government to commit a sin. It has no soul, it's incapable of the act. If discussing sin, it is always about individuals, not groups. There is really no such thing as an evil people or government, not even when talking about Nazi's. Having said that, because a government or group of people as a whole has no soul, it also is not capable of guilt or distinguishing right and wrong. Therefore whenever people choose to act as a group, then that action must be chosen and evaluated carefully and warily. It's something to be suspicious of at all times, even when the most noble of purposes are claimed.<BR/><BR/>When Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, I've always read that as a caution against acting in self-righteousness toward another. Not merely when feeling vindicated to use physical violence but rather taking revenge of any sort. I think the passage is about the evil of revenge even more than the evil of violence. Revenge is the ultimate impermissible act, not violence. Revenge implies judgment of someone Else's soul, and that is strictly God's territory alone. We humans are not competent enough in that area to make such an evaluation.<BR/><BR/>However, violence may or may not be permissible so long as it is not for revenge. In this sense it is acceptable to fight in a war and even kill another provided you are protecting others and even your own life. What would not be acceptable would be to do this motivated by revenge. I know I keep repeating myself, but the one thing that always sticks out for me regarding the beatitudes is that they are cautions and blessings of thoughts and feelings rather than actions. It's why you do something that counts, not necessarily what you do. <BR/><BR/>Death Penalty:<BR/><BR/>In some cases it is a just punishment for a crime. However, I do not believe that as a society we should permit it. I'm a former full-blown proponent of the death penalty. What made me have second and third thoughts was watching when a few years ago CA had its first death penalty execution in many years. Specifically what I saw were pro-death penalty people in the parking lot of the prison having tailgate parties waiting for the final walk of the prisoner down death row. <BR/><BR/>It sickened me. I came to the conclusion that as a society we are not mature enough to be trusted with the death penalty. The taking of a life in such a manner should be done with a sober and serious mind, not a giddy sense of righteousness. As a society, we may never be mature enough to be trusted with it. It's a permanent, final act. There's no taking it back or undoing the taking of a life. <BR/><BR/>And also, even though I still believe the death penalty to be at times to a just punishment, it's also simply not a legal power I'm comfortable trusting a government of any kind to have. Not even a government I believe in and am a part of. It's a power thats just too easily abused or used in error.Patrick (gryph)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14528184340065689605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1123471399177607922005-08-07T20:23:00.000-07:002005-08-07T20:23:00.000-07:00Well, first thing's first. Let's do a global sear...Well, first thing's first. Let's do a global search and replace and fix it so that it says "tgirsch" (my actual screen name) instead of "tgrisch" (which is what a lot of people want to turn it into). :)<BR/><BR/>Now, where were we?<BR/><BR/><I>I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad).</I><BR/><BR/>Well, the Catholics (at least the official church doctrines) are quite consistent with respect to capital punishment. The Church teaches that capital punishment is <I>only</I> permissible when it is the <I>only</I> way to prevent the offender from doing further harm to others. And church leaders have since written that in modern times, such a circumstance is all but inconceivable. That is, there are always ways to keep an offender from doing more harm; even if this means solitary confinement for life, that's still preferable to the death penalty.<BR/><BR/><I>As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, war is sometimes necessary in my opinion, but how <I>I</I> feel about it isn't exactly relevant. I was merely talking about what <I>Jesus</I> taught, and to my knowledge he never personally advocated violence of <I>any</I> kind, never mind war. Paul might be a different bird there.<BR/><BR/><I>I think there are <BR/>political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>I think it's ill-advised to narrolw interpret Jesus' teachings, especially considering the fact that he frequently taught in parables and put layered lessons into his teachings. There is great wisdom to be found there, well beyond the immediate lesson at hand, if we'll just look.<BR/><BR/><I>I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps, but a textually narrow interpretation doesn't necessarily mean caution. While we shouldn't take too much <I>liberty</I> with our reading of Jesus' teachings, I believe he would also frown on a too-narrow reading. And that's all I'm saying.TGirschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296761462380289467noreply@blogger.com