1776 & Liberation Theology

[MrJim]

"In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice), poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty), and human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)." (From Wiki)

Whenever discussion of the American Revolution comes up I often think of it in terms of liberation theology. While we often think of LT in terms of Roman Catholics in Central/South America, I put forth that the same kind of thinking went into the American Revolution. When discussing with those supporting the revolution they will cite how the Founding Fathers used scripture and belief in God to support their basis for the revolution. Issues of "rights" are at the center of the conversation-as in any revolution. In the Declaration of Independence it says that:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed, by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity), with certain unalienable Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights), that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).

Then this statement becomes the basis for a revolution against the mandate in Romans 13:

1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.

I will state that I disagree with the statement that all men are endowed with "unalienable rights", some of which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When I look at the scriptures there is nothing there stating that I have rights to any of that and it is a rather shallow approach to life--especially in light of Christ.

So in picking up arms these Christians were attempting to throw of the shackles of "bondage" for liberation using whatever means necessary, which means dead people. My rights are more important that your life...?

[ZiSunka]

Just prior to the Revolution, American went through the Great Awakening, a time of huge evanglism and turning to God and the Bible for direction in life.

It is out of this Great Awakening that the revolution sprang, because the freedom from the tyranny of remote governance and unbearable taxation was inspired by their new freedom from the tyranny of decadence and the unbrearable burden of sin.

I think you are absolutely right about that.

I think I start to disagree when you seem to think that liberty means that everyone does whatever they want without regard for what is best for the group, like submitting to the just actions of the government, submitting to the authority of the government to keep the peace and prosecute the just laws, etc.

You have to remember that most of those Christians were not anabaptists or quakers, they were methodists, presbyterians, baptists, and other denoms that don't advocate peaceful means of change, AND their government did not allow for peaceful change, they had no right to vote, no right to speak out, not even the right to publish articles or statements that were critical of their government. They had little choice at that time in this place to make change except for a violent revolution. They were willing to die for their cause, but they were mostly willing to kill for freedom.

Look at the civil rights movement as headed by MLK Jr. He advocated a peaceful, nonviolent revolution and had thousands of followers. Although he was shot, his family attacked, his people bombed and burned and lynched, he still would not advocate the use of violence. Powerful people within the government and within the news media joined his cause, not only because it was a just revolution, but because MLK exemplified peaceful change. Even when others around him were retalliating, MLK kept on with the peaceful demonstrations and the firm but peaceful messages of freedom. It even cost him his life. But the revolution happened anyway. Without MLK or any of his followers having to raise a rifle or plant a bomb.

Pacifism works, but passivity does not. The difference is that a pacifist is a peacemaker (the word pacifism comes from the latin for "peace" and "making") actively but nonviolently works for peace and justice, but a passivist just stands by and lets the world go to hell in a handbasket without ever raising their voice.

Most anabaptists I know are passivists, letting the world around them do whatever it wants without making any attempt to influence its direction. That is not what I think Christian peacemakers are supposed to be doing. :( It's counter-Christian. Jesus constantly stood among the crowds telling people about how the world is, AND how it is supposed to be (You have heard it said...But I tell you...). He didn't use violence to bring about his revolution, but he didn't just stand around saying "tsk, tsk, tsk, look how bad things are in the world today. Let's go find a remote place where we can live by our principles and leave these people to live in hell on earth."

I know that I do not take the typical historical stance for the "plain people," but the mennonite church has always been active in peacemaking and I hope that I could represent them as I am called to do so.

[MrJim]

But what I am hearing you say is that it is/was ok for Christians not of the "peace church" to use violence to forward their agenda.

" You have to remember that most of those Christians were not anabaptists or quakers, they were methodists, presbyterians, baptists, and other denoms that don't advocate peaceful means of change, AND their government did not allow for peaceful change, they had no right to vote, no right to speak out, not even the right to publish articles or statements that were critical of their government. They had little choice at that time in this place to make change except for a violent revolution. They were willing to die for their cause, but they were mostly willing to kill for freedom."

[ZiSunka]

But what I am hearing you say is that it is/was ok for Christians not of the "peace church" to use violence to forward their agenda.

Absolutely not!

I was just explaining where they were coming from, that's all.

In the preaching of the Great Awakening, there was a lot of military symbolism lifted out of the Bible, you know, the armor of God and all. And the dominant churches were not peace churches, so they didn't have any direction that would lead them to use peaceful means to attain their goals. Violence and force is the way of the world, and having come out of the world so recently and with all the military symbolism and the feeling of urgency that they had, not to mention that Brittain fired the first shot, violence was bound to erupt.

Had they been taught to use nonviolent means, things might have been resolved differently. But the circumstances were not in favor of that happening.

But I absolutely believe that military force and violence are always wrong. I don't really understand how you got that I was saying anything different...unless you didn't read the whole post! ;)

[MrJim]

But I absolutely believe that military force and violence are always wrong. I don't really understand how you got that I was saying anything different...unless you didn't read the whole post! ;)

OK I gotcha!

Justification for violent force to bring about the conditions we want in our life via some context of scripture is a root of liberation theology. Guy looks at bible and pulls from it that man should be "free" to do what he wants.

The the killing continues as these "rights" are defended. Again, "rights" are worth more than life.

This then brings back the teaching of the two kingdoms. Now, I will say I am grateful for living in America and I would hope that I could be grateful for living in any other nation as well, for as Christians we have to realize that the world around us is our mission, not our home.

The mission then is to bring the gospel to this world. In that is the teaching that Christ died to save us. But along with that message is--what is the Church to look like--what does God require of us?

Mark 12

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Well, to ask the Founding Fathers they'd probably not think that those British soldiers and King George himself were neighbors...

[ZiSunka]

Well, to ask the Founding Fathers they'd probably not think that those British soldiers and King George himself were neighbors...

If you asked 100 Christians right now, they probably wouldn't think their enemies are their neighbors. It's one of those distinctively anabaptist/quaker things I think.

[Jehane]

My own nation is an interesting example of what happens to people inside when you constantly practice injustices against them & deny them the basics of their humanity. As a British penal colony violence was a way of life for the majority of our first settlers & to this day there is a strong element of anti-authoritism, non-co-operation & outright hatred of the government - no matter who is in power. Interestingly, as a friend of mine pointed out, it is the Christian nations who have the best social justice, the best social services & the most equitable laws for everyone.

[MrJim]

Oh yeah, aussies have a rep. I've heard many american say that australia would be their new home if anything ever happened in US.

[Jehane]

They are braver than they know then. Many Yanks have a hard time handling Aussie humour, especially when it starts knocking the states. They get hot under the collar & very defensive. Most Aussies don't get the super patriotic thing - it's not part of our culture. We love our country but it's a pretty laid back sort of thing. Most of us would rather throw another snag (sausage) on the barbie & grab a cold beer (not me; I don't drink) than celebrate with a parade or something. We have quite a few American Vietnam vets on the island so I've seen this in action numerous times with Aussie blokes baiting the Americans then reeling them in like a fish. Those who have been here a while have learnt to defuse the baiters before they really get going but when we were first here & a lot of the Americans were fairly new to the country there were regular fist fights at the RSL (returned services league) because of it.

[ZiSunka]

They are braver than they know then. Many Yanks have a hard time handling Aussie humour, especially when it starts knocking the states. They get hot under the collar & very defensive. Most Aussies don't get the super patriotic thing - it's not part of our culture. We love our country but it's a pretty laid back sort of thing. Most of us would rather throw another snag (sausage) on the barbie & grab a cold beer (not me; I don't drink) than celebrate with a parade or something. We have quite a few American Vietnam vets on the island so I've seen this in action numerous times with Aussie blokes baiting the Americans then reeling them in like a fish. Those who have been here a while have learnt to defuse the baiters before they really get going but when we were first here & a lot of the Americans were fairly new to the country there were regular fist fights at the RSL (returned services league) because of it.

No offense, but baiting other people with "humor" seems pretty childish.

I have seen Ausies get into fights in the US over things that were said about Australia, though. I went to college with a few Aussies and they would start to fight at the first unkind word against anything or anyone Australian. Maybe they are laid-back at home, but defensive aboard?

[Jehane]

Oh, I agree absolutely - very childish. And just like anywhere else we have a 'yob' element who seem to think it's their duty in life to upset other people. Also I found Aussies in Europe were very well recieved but we have an appalling rep all over Asia - different sorts of people travel to different countries. I haven't travelled to yours & have no idea why those kids would have reacted that way. In the end where we come from will not matter in the least; it's where we're going that matters. I was merely commenting on a cultural thing I'd observed, not condoning it.

[ZiSunka]

It is human to think the best about the place we come from and the people who live there! I'm sure your friends are the best kind of people and that's why they never get upset when someone kids them about their home country. :)

[Jehane]

I don't see the point, frankly. (Have we hi-jacked this thread? Sorry Menno.) I've been called a British convict by the Brits (which is pretty funny really as all my family got here late & all were free settlers.) I find some of the things people are prepared to get upset & fight over more than a little strange. I bleed the same as anyone else & figure we have more in common than we have differences.

[MrJim]

I don't see the point, frankly. (Have we hi-jacked this thread? Sorry Menno.) I've been called a British convict by the Brits (which is pretty funny really as all my family got here late & all were free settlers.) I find some of the things people are prepared to get upset & fight over more than a little strange. I bleed the same as anyone else & figure we have more in common than we have differences.

Exactly--what is the point of defending a worldly kingdom when God's Kingdom is our true home? It's like watching people argue over their favorite football teams when arguing nationalism.

[ZiSunka]

Exactly--what is the point of defending a worldly kingdom when God's Kingdom is our true home?

Amen! :)

If foreign invaders were to come and throw you out of your home right now, what would you do?

[Jehane]

Out of my house or out of my country? The house they can have. It is possible to live of the land; not real comfortable but possible. I would head into the hills; which is where the bible says to hide; ok, not in context but it sounds sensible at least.

[MrJim]

Amen! :)

If foreign invaders were to come and throw you out of your home right now, what would you do?

Let's see if I have the characters right...

When the roman empire was being attacked Jerome panicked and said to Augustine about the crisis-oh the empire would fall and the church would suffer.

Augustine said something like, don't be ridiculous, we now have more people we can witness Christ to.

Foreign invaders? How can they be foreign to me--I don't consider myself a citizen of this world.

I will admit there is a part of me that would like the whole army of God thing-pick up weapons for God and defend the nation for God and deal with the porn shops and abortion places and such for God but it's not what Jesus called us to.

Foreign invaders??? Go into the hills and hide? Let them imprison or execute me & my family? I wouldn't know what I'd do until that time would come, except pray it would be honoring to God. Sure ain't gonna kill anyone over this house and the stuff in it.

[Danfrey]

If you asked 100 Christians right now, they probably wouldn't think their enemies are their neighbors. It's one of those distinctively anabaptist/quaker things I think.
Actually, it is a distinctively Jesus thing. Just look at the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus chose someone the Jews despised for a reason.

[Danfrey]

Foreign invaders??? Go into the hills and hide? Let them imprison or execute me & my family? I wouldn't know what I'd do until that time would come, except pray it would be honoring to God. Sure ain't gonna kill anyone over this house and the stuff in it.

Well said Menno.

I think I would do the same thing Jesus did about the foreign invaders in his homeland. Nothing.

Earlier someone said how he would stand up against injustice. Let me bring to note that it wasn't the Romans he stood up against. It was the religious people that he called to the carpet. As far as the injustice in the Roman government for the Roman control of his homeland, I don't remember him even mentioning it. So, from this we can conclude that it is ok to stand up against injustice. In The Church.

[Jehane]

I'm handicapped. I have children & my first instinct would be to protect them so that once things calmed down after he first impact there was still a Christian lineage to witness in the world. It is all very well to stand & die for our principles - but then what? Someone needs to be around when the invaders stop their pillaging & rampaging to point to a better way. A dead witnes can lo longer be Christ's hands & feet in this world.

[MrJim]

I'm handicapped. I have children & my first instinct would be to protect them so that once things calmed down after he first impact there was still a Christian lineage to witness in the world. It is all very well to stand & die for our principles - but then what? Someone needs to be around when the invaders stop their pillaging & rampaging to point to a better way. A dead witnes can lo longer be Christ's hands & feet in this world.

The gates of hell will not prevail against the church---there will always be a witness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_Mirror

[Jehane]

Touche.

[ZiSunka]

Let's see if I have the characters right...

When the roman empire was being attacked Jerome panicked and said to Augustine about the crisis-oh the empire would fall and the church would suffer.

Augustine said something like, don't be ridiculous, we now have more people we can witness Christ to.

Foreign invaders? How can they be foreign to me--I don't consider myself a citizen of this world.

I will admit there is a part of me that would like the whole army of God thing-pick up weapons for God and defend the nation for God and deal with the porn shops and abortion places and such for God but it's not what Jesus called us to.

Foreign invaders??? Go into the hills and hide? Let them imprison or execute me & my family? I wouldn't know what I'd do until that time would come, except pray it would be honoring to God. Sure ain't gonna kill anyone over this house and the stuff in it.

Good answer! I can get so tired of the "I'd get my gun and kill anyone who tried to take away what is mine" answer.

[ZiSunka]

I'm handicapped. I have children & my first instinct would be to protect them so that once things calmed down after he first impact there was still a Christian lineage to witness in the world. It is all very well to stand & die for our principles - but then what? Someone needs to be around when the invaders stop their pillaging & rampaging to point to a better way. A dead witnes can lo longer be Christ's hands & feet in this world.

Actually, throughout history, the dead witnesses have proved to be the most effective. :angel:

[MrJim]

Actually, throughout history, the dead witnesses have proved to be the most effective. :angel:

Lots of Christian martyrs....they say 20th century has the most, bet the 21st will beat it.

www.persecution.com/

[ZiSunka]

I have read that more people have gotten saved by the witness of the various martyrs than from all the missionaries that ever lived.

[artrx]

Look at the civil rights movement as headed by MLK Jr. He advocated a peaceful, nonviolent revolution and had thousands of followers. Although he was shot, his family attacked, his people bombed and burned and lynched, he still would not advocate the use of violence. Powerful people within the government and within the news media joined his cause, not only because it was a just revolution, but because MLK exemplified peaceful change. Even when others around him were retalliating, MLK kept on with the peaceful demonstrations and the firm but peaceful messages of freedom. It even cost him his life. But the revolution happened anyway. Without MLK or any of his followers having to raise a rifle or plant a bomb.

Pacifism works, but passivity does not. The difference is that a pacifist is a peacemaker (the word pacifism comes from the latin for "peace" and "making") actively but nonviolently works for peace and justice, but a passivist just stands by and lets the world go to hell in a handbasket without ever raising their voice.

Most anabaptists I know are passivists, letting the world around them do whatever it wants without making any attempt to influence its direction. That is not what I think Christian peacemakers are supposed to be doing. :( It's counter-Christian. Jesus constantly stood among the crowds telling people about how the world is, AND how it is supposed to be (You have heard it said...But I tell you...). He didn't use violence to bring about his revolution, but he didn't just stand around saying "tsk, tsk, tsk, look how bad things are in the world today. Let's go find a remote place where we can live by our principles and leave these people to live in hell on earth."

I know that I do not take the typical historical stance for the "plain people," but the mennonite church has always been active in peacemaking and I hope that I could represent them as I am called to do so.

I would rep you if I could:thumbsup: . (Ghandi is another great example)
"In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice), poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty), and human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)." (From Wiki)

Although Liberation Theology has been used to support violent means of effecting needed change, Violence is by no means necessary to or even desired by all. The theology is much broader and is also used by peaceful groups as well, advocating non-violent resistance when necessary but working through every peaceful and legal means available for justice in all areas. Through it's voice many of those in the poorest pueblo jovenes were helped socially and economically in Peru. People organized in thier own communities and through thier faith to better themselves and the futures of thier children. There were and are catholic nuns and priests as well as other Christians who have given thier lives working for peace and justice in Latin America, many times under the umbrella of Liberation Theology. When you live in a country that is rampant with poverty, and political, social, cultural and economic abuse the realities make LT much more appealing , and common sense,than to those of us in wealthy nations. Catholics, Mennonites, Lutherans, and many other christians are working for similar goals in Latin America. Those we knew and worked with while we were there did.

[MrJim]

I would rep you if I could:thumbsup: . (Ghandi is another great example)


Although Liberation Theology has been used to support violent means of effecting needed change, Violence is by no means necessary to or even desired by all. The theology is much broader and is also used by peaceful groups as well, advocating non-violent resistance when necessary but working through every peaceful and legal means available for justice in all areas. Through it's voice many of those in the poorest pueblo jovenes were helped socially and economically in Peru. People organized in thier own communities and through thier faith to better themselves and the futures of thier children. There were and are catholic nuns and priests as well as other Christians who have given thier lives working for peace and justice in Latin America, many times under the umbrella of Liberation Theology. When you live in a country that is rampant with poverty, and political, social, cultural and economic abuse the realities make LT much more appealing , and common sense,than to those of us in wealthy nations. Catholics, Mennonites, Lutherans, and many other christians are working for similar goals in Latin America. Those we knew and worked with while we were there did.

The church is always to be involved in the relief efforts and in helping build families and supporting communities. Is it to be involved in nation building?

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

This is the path one tends to fall into when wanting to use force (violent or not). Ghandi used force. It was nonviolent but still he used force to forward his agenda. Nonviolent resistance is still resistance--and the anabaptist is to be non-resistant, not pacifist. This is not the path of the historical anabaptists. Neither is it passivism. There is a third way that does not mean to use force as a weapon of change, but simply the preaching of the Kingdom of God and doing as Christ has commanded us to do--then the Holy Spirit does the work.

It is considered that this is "not enough". But if it wasn't Christ would have given us a mandate to force His will onto the Kingdom of Man. There is a certain romance to being a Crusader...a Knight of God in battle against the evil heathen. But then, our enemies are not flesh and blood and our weapons are not guns and swords and we don't trust in chariots and tanks. The imagery is war, but even a nonviolent resistance is a war. This is where the nonresistant position parts with the MLK & Ghandi pacifist positions.

[ZiSunka]

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

My, you're quick to put labels on everthing. Sometimes I worry that you are so eager to label things that you don't fully read or digest the post first.

Things that are labelled get put on a shelf, meaning, once someone labels someone else's ideas, they don't really deal with them, they just set them aside and ignore what was said.

Please don't let that happen!

[MrJim]

My, you're quick to put labels on everthing. Sometimes I worry that you are so eager to label things that you don't fully read or digest the post first.

Things that are labelled get put on a shelf, meaning, once someone labels someone else's ideas, they don't really deal with them, they just set them aside and ignore what was said.

Please don't let that happen!

Don't be so quick to label me as a labeller:P

Dominion Theology is a handy reference, that's all

[artrx]

The church is always to be involved in the relief efforts and in helping build families and supporting communities.

:thumbsup:

Is it to be involved in nation building?

This is the plan of Dominion Theology--that Christians are to have control of the gov'ts, "christianize" the world, and then Christ will come.

I don't know anything about Dominion Theology and sure wouldn't want to leave Christianity in the gov't's hands:o.

This is the path one tends to fall into when wanting to use force (violent or not). Ghandi used force. It was nonviolent but still he used force to forward his agenda. Nonviolent resistance is still resistance--and the anabaptist is to be non-resistant, not pacifist. This is not the path of the historical anabaptists. Neither is it passivism. There is a third way that does not mean to use force as a weapon of change, but simply the preaching of the Kingdom of God and doing as Christ has commanded us to do--then the Holy Spirit does the work.

It is considered that this is "not enough". But if it wasn't Christ would have given us a mandate to force His will onto the Kingdom of Man. There is a certain romance to being a Crusader...a Knight of God in battle against the evil heathen. But then, our enemies are not flesh and blood and our weapons are not guns and swords and we don't trust in chariots and tanks. The imagery is war, but even a nonviolent resistance is a war. This is where the nonresistant position parts with the MLK & Ghandi pacifist positions.

I don't know enough about the anabaptist way. I only know the thoughts of the Mennonites we worked with. In this area as in so many others there seems to be differing perspectives on how one acts out or interprets God's commands. I like to hear more on the differences of passifism and non-resistance. What happens when following the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?

[MrJim]

I like to hear more on the differences of passifism and non-resistance. What happens when following the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?

Pacifism seeks to force its agenda via nonviolent means
Non-resistance does not seek to force its agenda-that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the commands of God clashes with human powers we of course follow God's way. The best example is the military draft (though the principle is further reaching). If drafted the nonresistant christian reports to the gov't and simply says "I cannot do what you order me to do but here I am." It is a submission to the gov't without obeying. Many will say that you have to obey the gov't regardless-this is not the case.

Now contrast this with the draft-dodger that runs away and hides--maybe for political or moral reasons, but still doesn't submit to the gov't.

Submission & Obedience--they are not the same thing.

[ZiSunka]

Pacifism seeks to force its agenda via nonviolent means
Non-resistance does not seek to force its agenda-that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

That's not really true or fair.

Just because you don't like pacifism doesn't mean you should denigrate it. It is the way a lot of mennonites see the call to peace, and it never forces anything on anyone.

I don't denigrate your positions, I respect them. I wish you would respect the mennonite position on peacemaking, too.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Now contrast this with the draft-dodger that runs away and hides--maybe for political or moral reasons, but still doesn't submit to the gov't.

A draft-dodger is not a peacemaker, and therefore not a pacifist.

Plus, this doesn't suit your statement that pacfists try to force their agenda on people. Draft-dodgers run away, they don't try to influence anyone by any means.

[MrJim]

That's not really true or fair.

Just because you don't like pacifism doesn't mean you should denigrate it. It is the way a lot of mennonites see the call to peace, and it never forces anything on anyone.

I don't denigrate your positions, I respect them. I wish you would respect the mennonite position on peacemaking, too.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."



A draft-dodger is not a peacemaker, and therefore not a pacifist.

Plus, this doesn't suit your statement that pacfists try to force their agenda on people. Draft-dodgers run away, they don't try to influence anyone by any means.

Pacifists certainly do force their agenda. This is done by whatever means-such as marches and strikes and pestering-to-harassment of gov't authorities. I am not denigrating-just saying that this is their way. They are not the only methods, but the ones that get the most attention and the ones that are opposite to non-resistant teaching and the ones that often end in violence (that is, the non-violent resisters getting busted up).

Pacifism by its nature will be somewhat anti-authoritarian. They are saying "We don't like it this way--we want it to that way" and go about getting it there. Now, if the methods follow what I and others believe to be a biblical model that's cool, but when it decides to take on the gov't to make the change then we have a problem.

I think it is a valid point in working to improve the conditions of others and it can be done without the disruption that leads to violent confrontations. It could be viewed as the two different approaches to the abortion clinic protests. There are the noisy protesters and then there are the peaceful ones that seek to minister more than make noise and let everyone know what they think. Who is really doing the most good.

The draft dodger example was for the purpose of demonstrating submission in regards to the "the commands of God directly clashes with the human powers that be?" statement.

Stay with me on this LL, let me know if I get too negative--that's what little sisters are for:hug:. Sometimes I don't communicate things as clearly and they come out sorta jarhead-ish^_^

[Danfrey]

A non-resistant jarhead. Wow, and I thought I was wierd.

[MrJim]

A non-resistant jarhead. Wow, and I thought I was wierd.

yeah, well, you still are ;)

be nice or I'll drop off a 6 month-old colicky baby at your doorstep.

[Jehane]

I can get you one of those if you need one.

[ACADEMIC]

Okay, let us pick apart something in this passage:

1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.

Let's say that I am a very powerful person with a large army at my disposal.

Let us also say that I up and decide that I want to go overthrow the government of, say, Elbonia.

So my men rush in, murder 300 people, we overthrow the government, and I set myself and my favored ones into positions of power.

Does this now make me the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13: 1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' so ACADEMIC and his men are ordained of God now."

Wow! I guess God works through violence and murder to set up authorites!

Now let us say the next week some revolutionaries from the Elbonian jungle rush the Elbonian Palace and overthrows my government, killing 300 more people. Their leader, Chu Gumara , then sets himself up as President and appoints his favored ones into government positions.

Does this now make Chu Gumara the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13:1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' and Chu and all his men are the one that now exist."

Are you serious??? And will God please make up His mind!!!

And there are many other examples that I could give, for different contexts.

The lead poster, and most Christians, fail to differentiate between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority.

Jer 5:30 "An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so!
But what will you do at the end of it?

But there is a MUCH more sane way to view Romans 13. I have already given all the clues. We have to think, though, and not just mindlessly throw around "proof texts" and think we are done with the matter.

[Jehane]

Of course there is legitimate & illegitimate authority but God is a God of order & doesn't want the whole kaboodle denigrating into chaos. To try & right one wrong with another wrong helps nobody - but it does create more disorder & chaos & I don't think that's either sensible, from a purely practical viewpoint, or Godly.

[ACADEMIC]

Of course there is legitimate & illegitimate authority but God is a God of order & doesn't want the whole kaboodle denigrating into chaos. To try & right one wrong with another wrong helps nobody - but it does create more disorder & chaos & I don't think that's either sensible, from a purely practical viewpoint, or Godly.
Applied to the concerns of the lead poster, the question is more concerning whether England in 1776 had become an illegitimate authority; and also whether the "authorites" in areas of concern to liberation theologians are "illegitimate."

IF they are illlegitimate, and if we can establish critera for determining that (and we can, from Scripture), THEN the Christian duty spoken of in Romans 13:1-2 becomes non-binding and other Biblical principles trump it. In such cases, it is nothing about wrongs making rights but rights righting wrongs.

[Jehane]

I think the point is more that to make war over the legitimacy or illigitimacy of the authorities in question is always wrong - it kills people, creates hardship, & damages the world we are asked to care for. And it is a moot point really as authority has quite obviously passed from one government to another. Some sort of government is necessary to maintain order & as it has been stable for some time now I would argue for its legitimacy. Also it is man, not God, causing all the strife & wars, so we are never going to have a completely legit authority; it will always be corrupt to a greater or lesser degree but as far as possible we are called to live in peace with all men.

[ACADEMIC]

I think the point is more that to make war over the legitimacy or illigitimacy of the authorities in question is always wrong - it kills people, creates hardship, & damages the world we are asked to care for. And it is a moot point really as authority has quite obviously passed from one government to another. Some sort of government is necessary to maintain order & as it has been stable for some time now I would argue for its legitimacy. Also it is man, not God, causing all the strife & wars, so we are never going to have a completely legit authority; it will always be corrupt to a greater or lesser degree but as far as possible we are called to live in peace with all men.
What then of a situation where the ruling authority kills people, creates hardship, damages resources, and only keeps some sense of "order" by killing dissenters and keeping nearly everyone else in fear. Supporting such a state as the "authority of God" then become support for ungodly actions.

[Jehane]

This has happened throughout history. Rome did it & Jesus told the Jews, a subjugated people, to render unto Ceasar what was Caesar's. It is not necessarily right nor pleasant & Jesus had some particularly harsh words to say about Herod Antipas but he paid his taxes to Rome like any other law-abiding Jew.

I still do not think further acts of violence against the initiators of violence achieves anything besides more chaos. I do think peaceful reactions to injustice, persecution & violence do more to quickly bring about stability & peace than all the rantings about how wrong & unfair it all is ever will. Scared rulers are almost always harsh rulers.

The reality is that sinful humans will always seek power & be corrupted by it but that does not give those who are called by Christ's name the right to further undermine whatever govt., remains, or to initiate change through violence. Most of the social changes that have seen the betterment of prisoner's , the mentally impaired, the insane & the crippled lives have been brought about by Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place

[ACADEMIC]

This has happened throughout history. Rome did it & Jesus told the Jews, a subjugated people, to render unto Ceasar what was Caesar's. It is not necessarily right nor pleasant & Jesus had some particularly harsh words to say about Herod Antipas but he paid his taxes to Rome like any other law-abiding Jew.

I still do not think further acts of violence against the initiators of violence achieves anything besides more chaos. I do think peaceful reactions to injustice, persecution & violence do more to quickly bring about stability & peace than all the rantings about how wrong & unfair it all is ever will. Scared rulers are almost always harsh rulers.

The reality is that sinful humans will always seek power & be corrupted by it but that does not give those who are called by Christ's name the right to further undermine whatever govt., remains, or to initiate change through violence. Most of the social changes that have seen the betterment of prisoner's , the mentally impaired, the insane & the crippled lives have been brought about by Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place

So-called "passive resistence" (a misnomer if there ever was one - if you are truly passive you don't resist) can certainly be very effective in subverting unjust regimes.

But I think we can wrongly connect "peacefully seeking change" with ideas that avoid radically confronting injustices, especially toward powers that exalt themselves and their ideas above Christ's.

I think that Paul in certain ways was radically political, along with the rest of the major Biblical writers and characters. In interest of brevity, consider just three arguments for this assertion.

Paul's Idea of Christ as Kyrios - Kyrios meant "Lord," and only the Roman Emperor was Kyrios, a god in fact, on top of the Roman social order. When Paul referred to Jesus Christ as Kyrios, it confronted the Roman Empire and its system in a major way and was political.

Paul's Idea of the Parousia or "Appearing" - Parousia to the Roman government meant the visit of the Roman Emperor to the provinces and cities to bring his version of peace and justice. When Paul took up parousia to mean Christ the Kyrios, it confronted the Roman Empire profoundly and was political.

Paul's Doctrine of Salvation - Paul articulated his doctrine of salvation with exactly the discourse and legal ins and outs of the Roman slavery and social system. This use, especially coupled with Kyrios, profoundly confronted the entire social order of the Roman Empire. This was political. For more on this point, read this sermon:

filelodge.com/files/room38/1082147/NTSlavery.pdf - (copy and paste it into your browser)

Even just Paul's nomenclatures concerning kyrios and parousia, coupled with the radically shocking way he depicted salvation in terms of the unjust Roman social system, antagonized the Roman authorities.

This is apart even from any actions taken, e.g., proclaiming in public that Christ is Kyrios (and King!), that He brings salvation (peace and justice) to all people (not just the privildged), and that His parousia is just about to bring earthly peace and justice, yes, Kyrios Christ is even now standing at the door awaiting to walk through it and bring it.

This utterly antagonized Rome - infuriated Rome muderously, in fact. Because it was utterly and totally radical.

And so the lions were eventually let loose to feed on Christians placed into closed spaces.

And Rome had Paul's head.

And Peter's entire carcass.

And John was relegated to a small rock surrounded by sea and deadly sea storms and even more deadly warships and soldiers.

Etc.

Kyrios, parousia, and salvation articulated in terms that were unmistakably an affront to the unjust Roman social order--these nomenclatures and accompanying actions were highly, perhaps very, very deliberately, political.

And while they were not violent, one can hardly apply to them "passive" or any idea of "Christians peacefully seeking change within the governmental system that was already in place."

In the minds of many average Romans, and most certainly in the view of the imperial Roman State, it was even radically political...the very reason that Rome struck back.

(Note how kyrios and the doctrine of salvation connote core tenants of Christianity, with some form of a parousia coming close behind.)

[Jehane]

I didn't say I was passive - or believed in passivity. My bent is towards quakerism, which has always very much concerned itsef with social justice. There is a reason Jesus called the peacemakers 'blessed.'

[Danfrey]

All of this talk about Paul terms is fine, but where did Paul confront the Roman authorities. His writings were to the addressed to the Christians. Paul was not standing in the Senate telling the Roman authorities to change.

The biggest issue here is that Christians should be looking to spiritual matters. Jesus didn't tell us to go into all the world and fix the political systems that oppress their people.

He told us
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Using human wisdom, we can show several reasons to get involved in changing the political systems of the world, but where is the New Testament example of Christians trying to change the government. Moving forward in time, where is the early church example of Christians trying to change the government. As far as I know, Christians didn't get involved in government until they started gaining political power. Then of course great things happened as a result.....The end of Pax Romana, the dark ages, and let's not forget the glorious crusades, or maybe the inquisistions. Now there were some politically active Christians making a difference in an ungodly world. Some were so successful that all of the citizens of their countries were Christian from the time of thier birth.

[Jehane]

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism - Elizabeth Fry, Mother Theresa etc. This is the essences of faith, to act as Christ acted.

[Danfrey]

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism - Elizabeth Fry, Mother Theresa etc. This is the essences of faith, to act as Christ acted.
I understand what you are saying Jehane. You are speaking of actually doing something about the problem. House the homeless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc. This approach I agree with totally.

For many making a difference means addressing the physical needs (which I agree with) and working at changing the government's attitude toward the problem. My post was directed toward the attitude of changing the government. In my understanding changing the government is not illustrated in the Bible or in early christianity.

I don't think we are called to stand by and do nothing. I believe we are called to change peoples attitudes through living the example that Christ left us.

[ACADEMIC]

All of this talk about Paul terms is fine, but where did Paul confront the Roman authorities. His writings were to the addressed to the Christians. Paul was not standing in the Senate telling the Roman authorities to change.

The biggest issue here is that Christians should be looking to spiritual matters. Jesus didn't tell us to go into all the world and fix the political systems that oppress their people.


Wow, talk about a collasal adventure in missing the point, and a heck-of-a-fine example of one impossing their life experiences and own thought on to the Scriptures.

And you seem to be treating the Bible like it recently dropped out of the sky and is devoid of a concrete historical and political context.

And you seem to think that Paul and other Christians of his day lived in some bubble seperate from their society.

Niether Paul nor any other Christians needed to stand in the Roman senate. When they articulated the faith within terms directly affrontive to Rome, Rome heard in no uncertain terms.

Besides, Theophilus was certainly a member of the Roman political elite; and if one can read Luke-Acts as devoid of things directly confronting him, both spiritually and socially, then they really are reading the Bible like its dropped out of the sky with their name on it recently.

In fact, it would have been not much of a big deal to Rome if Christians had just kept their message to the citizens in the Senate. It is when that message was proclaimed "out there" in the public that it became so affrontive.

Your compartmentalizing of "spiritual" and "social" is false.

When Moses under God delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt, was it spiritual or social/political?

When the Prophets spoke against sin, both Israel's and the nations', was that sin spiritual or social/political?

When Paul won Onesimus out of slavery, was it spiritual or social/political?

Etc.

Yea, that's what I thought. It was both.

[MrJim]

Okay, let us pick apart something in this passage:

1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.

Let's say that I am a very powerful person with a large army at my disposal.

Let us also say that I up and decide that I want to go overthrow the government of, say, Elbonia.

So my men rush in, murder 300 people, we overthrow the government, and I set myself and my favored ones into positions of power.

Does this now make me the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13: 1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' so ACADEMIC and his men are ordained of God now."

Wow! I guess God works through violence and murder to set up authorites!

Now let us say the next week some revolutionaries from the Elbonian jungle rush the Elbonian Palace and overthrows my government, killing 300 more people. Their leader, Chu Gumara , then sets himself up as President and appoints his favored ones into government positions.

Does this now make Chu Gumara the authority ordained of God in Elbonia? Do we now come along and quote Romans 13:1-2 and say, "Well, 'those who exist are ordained by God,' and Chu and all his men are the one that now exist."

Are you serious??? And will God please make up His mind!!!

And there are many other examples that I could give, for different contexts.

The lead poster, and most Christians, fail to differentiate between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority.

Jer 5:30 "An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so!
But what will you do at the end of it?

But there is a MUCH more sane way to view Romans 13. I have already given all the clues. We have to think, though, and not just mindlessly throw around "proof texts" and think we are done with the matter.

Nero was about as rotten a leader as there was yet Paul (a Roman citizen) didn't unite a revolution to overthrow him.

You are suggesting that we can decide what is an "acceptable" Godly legitimate authority? Church can't even come to a consensus on baptism. So then the Romans 13 is subjective--submit only to those we "feel" are acceptable?

Yup, God uses whatever means to set up the earthly authorities. You are suggesting that the American gov't is legit, yet it was born in blood. Guess most all gov'ts are.

[ACADEMIC]

I'm not talking about politics, which bores me to death, but social activism.


But social activism is political. Any and all actions are political. Nothing is apolitical.

[Jehane]

Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter which side of a political fence someone sits on, or if they sit on the fence itself, if a person needs help, then you help. I can't help if you want to make that political; I'm only interested in people & not their political beliefs - at least until after their need has been met.

[ACADEMIC]

Nero was about as rotten a leader as there was yet Paul (a Roman citizen) didn't unite a revolution to overthrow him.

You are suggesting that we can decide what is an "acceptable" Godly legitimate authority? Church can't even come to a consensus on baptism. So then the Romans 13 is subjective--submit only to those we "feel" are acceptable?

Yup, God uses whatever means to set up the earthly authorities. You are suggesting that the American gov't is legit, yet it was born in blood. Guess most all gov'ts are.

Okay, forget thinking, just get the Bible out and treat it like a rule book dropped from the sky recently, demanding to be to be mindlessly followed.

But let us say that you live in Central Elbonia.

Recall how last month a revolutionary group from the bush set itself into power through a coup. Well, yesterday, yet another faction came in and overthrew that government.

But as soon as the new faction came to power, infighting began. So half of the faction moves to Northern Elbonia and the other to Southern Elbonia. Each set themselves into power. Both claim they are the legitimate authority in Elbonia.

So there you sit in Central Elbonia, perplexed. Who is your "God ordained authority"? How will you decide?

By the way, this exact scenario did occur in history, in Haiti.

[MrJim]

Okay, forget thinking, just get the Bible out and treat it like a rule book dropped from the sky recently, demanding to be to be mindlessly followed.

But let us say that you live in Central Elbonia.

Recall how last month a revolutionary group from the bush set itself into power through a coup. Well, yesterday, yet another faction came in and overthrew that government.

But as soon as the new faction came to power, infighting began. So half of the faction moves to Northern Elbonia and the other to Southern Elbonia. Each set themselves into power. Both claim they are the legitimate authority in Elbonia.

So there you sit in Central Elbonia, perplexed. Who is your "God ordained authority"? How will you decide?

By the way, this exact scenario did occur in history, in Haiti.

What you are not seeing is...that it just doesn't matter who is in control of whatever piece of real estate a christian lives on because christians are simply amabassadors of the Kingdom of God.

The anabaptists-and I'm particularly thinking of Michael Sattler--were persecuted because (among other things) would not fight against the muslim invaders. They too believed in the two kingdoms and felt no allegiance to a worldly power. One simply is as good as another. If we were to have a theocratic power like OT Israel then things would be different.

Preaching the Kingdom is what Christ called us to do. If and when it changes governments know that hearts were changed first. It is not our goal to change gov't, but if a heart is changed and a gov't is changed along with it then Praise God!

:wave:Hey, btw, welcome to the Anabaptist forum ACADEMIC, haven't seen ya around these parts before!

[ACADEMIC]

Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter which side of a political fence someone sits on, or if they sit on the fence itself, if a person needs help, then you help. I can't help if you want to make that political; I'm only interested in people & not their political beliefs - at least until after their need has been met.

Your apolitical intentions in the matter are irrelevant. During a political upheavel, for example, you personally may not be interested in which side an injured person is on, but you can bet that those around you will be. Your actions in caring for a person on one side or the other or in whatever combination will therefore be unavoidably political. Your actions, apart from your intent, are nontheless political. All actions have political implications. Nothing is apolitical.

[ACADEMIC]

Hi, menno, thanks for the welcome! :)

This "no allegiance to any government except the kingdom of God" seems to go against common notions of Romans 13:1-2, etc. It seems like Christian Anarchism.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anarchism

(copy and paste the above into your browser's address window)

Is this what you mean?

[Danfrey]

Actually Christian Anarchism goes opposite two kingdoms theology. Two Kingdoms theology says I will submit to whatever government is in power over me, even if that government is an evil dictator who gained power yesterday. As far as I see it, Romans 13 speaks of the concept of Government. It is not directed toward any particular government. When we speak of allegience, we are speaking of fighting for the government, or participating in it. As people who hold to a two kingdoms theology, it really doesn't matter what is going on in government. I won't raise a sword for or against any government. I will feed the hungry regardless of the flag they honor.

[MrJim]

Hi, menno, thanks for the welcome! :)

This "no allegiance to any government except the kingdom of God" seems to go against common notions of Romans 13:1-2, etc. It seems like Christian Anarchism.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anarchism

(copy and paste the above into your browser's address window)

Is this what you mean?

I can see where you'd think that anabaptists would fall under the Christian Anarchism. This is where the diff between nonresistance and pacifism comes into play. However we do not seek to overthrow any regime, but simply as Dan says, to forward the Kingdom of God regardless of whatever flag flies in the land.

It is not a foreign concept--it was rather a common belief in the ante-nicene age. I could post some comments from the likes of Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Hermas. But one interesting thing to consider is that in the time of Christ there was a push to rebel against the invaders--the Romans--and to get them out of Jerusalem and out of Israel. The time was ripe--but Jesus didn't take that approach. His teaching was render to Caesar, not to preach against Caesar or lead a revolt against a corrupt foreigner. His was the gospel of the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Man.

It is indeed an upside-down Kingdom--things don't make sense. To be last is to be first. To be poor is to be rich. To be meek is to inherit the earth. It don't make sense in a lot of ways, but mysterious are the ways of God.:thumbsup:

[ZiSunka]

For many making a difference means addressing the physical needs (which I agree with) and working at changing the government's attitude toward the problem. My post was directed toward the attitude of changing the government. In my understanding changing the government is not illustrated in the Bible or in early christianity.

It wasn't available to people in Biblical times or to early Christians. Their only choices were to submit or rebel. We in this century have other choices.

I assume that because early Christians didn't drive cars, use telephones or shop in grocery stores, you are opposed to doing those, too?

[MrJim]

It wasn't available to people in Biblical times or to early Christians. Their only choices were to submit or rebel. We in this century have other choices.

We are told to submit

I assume that because early Christians didn't drive cars, use telephones or shop in grocery stores, you are opposed to doing those, too?

They had horses & donkeys, messengers, and markets...like Solomon said, there really is nothing new under the sun:P

[Danfrey]

It wasn't available to people in Biblical times or to early Christians. Their only choices were to submit or rebel. We in this century have other choices.

Did Roman citizens like Paul have an opportunity to participate in the government by voting? Are you claiming that none of the Governments that the early Christians lived under allowed citizen influence or participation? I seem to recall one of the early writings addressed to a leader asking them to stop persecuting christians, I guess this could be considered a form of influencing the government.



I assume that because early Christians didn't drive cars, use telephones or shop in grocery stores, you are opposed to doing those, too?

Government did exist during the time of the Early Christians, therefore we can make a comparison of their response to government and ours.

[ZiSunka]

Did Roman citizens like Paul have an opportunity to participate in the government by voting?

No. As a person born outside of Rome, he did not possess the right to vote. Only those people born and actively living inside had the right to vote (three years of latin class finally pay off! :) ) All government and laws came from Rome and was created by Romans. Those citizens who were born outside of Rome had rights, but the right to vote was not among them. There were no naturalizations and no absentee ballots.

I seem to recall one of the early writings addressed to a leader asking them to stop persecuting christians, I guess this could be considered a form of influencing the government.

You are quite a contradiciton of doctrines! First you say that you would not attempt to influence gevernment because the early Christians didn't attempt to influence their governments, then you say the early Christians wrote to their governors in an attempt to influence the government. :scratch:

Government did exist during the time of the Early Christians, therefore we can make a comparison of their response to government and ours.

Yes, a very different form of government in which the average person had no authority or voice. We don't have that excuse today. :(

[Danfrey]

You are quite a contradiciton of doctrines! First you say that you would not attempt to influence gevernment because the early Christians didn't attempt to influence their governments, then you say the early Christians wrote to their governors in an attempt to influence the government. :scratch:


This is not a contradiction, this is called honesty. As I was typing my post, I recalled something I read from one of the early writers addressed to a leader asking that they not persecute christians. I am not afraid to admit that I don't always have all the answers. In the same way I would not knock someone for writing to Bush asking him to end the war, but I still believe that citizens of the heavenly kingdom should not participate in the governments of this world. I guess I could live with a nice letter asking them to do the right thing though.

[ZiSunka]

This is not a contradiction, this is called honesty. As I was typing my post, I recalled something I read from one of the early writers addressed to a leader asking that they not persecute christians. I am not afraid to admit that I don't always have all the answers. In the same way I would not knock someone for writing to Bush asking him to end the war, but I still believe that citizens of the heavenly kingdom should not participate in the governments of this world. I guess I could live with a nice letter asking them to do the right thing though.

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov

[MrJim]

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov

:cool::cool::cool: <Secret Service agents if ya don't write the letter nicely

[Danfrey]

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov
I said I wouldn't knock someone for doing it. I never said I planned to do it. I made my statement to the government in a three page letter detailing why I was a contientious objector. That is the last letter I plan to address to any government official.

[ZiSunka]

I said I wouldn't knock someone for doing it. I never said I planned to do it. I made my statement to the government in a three page letter detailing why I was a contientious objector. That is the last letter I plan to address to any government official.

hmm...

[MrJim]

I ran across this quote by Paul Harvey from wiki:

In a 2005 monologue, the U.S. response to the World Trade Center attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_attacks) prompted Harvey to wax nostaglic.

"Winston Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill) was not here to remind us that we didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy. So, following the New York disaster, we mustered our humanity. We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon. We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos. Even now we’re standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we’ve declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized. Our image is at stake, we insist. But we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox) infected blankets to native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare)! And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And we grew prosperous. And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

[DevonShire]

Paul Harvey has denied making that statement and has asked the wiki to remove it.

And the Detroit station we listen to has Paul Harvey every day and it doesn't sound at all like something he would say. It sounds mean not witty. Harvey's show is about wittiness and discovering surprizing facts, not being political.

[MrJim]

Too bad someone would attribute it to him.

It's actually quite a good quote in many respects.

[DevonShire]

Too bad someone would attribute it to him.

It's actually quite a good quote in many respects.

Really? I think it seems rather bitter.

There are ways to get the same message across with love and without the bitterness.

[MrJim]

Maybe there is,

consider though what is said

So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

That is a fascinating way to put it. The frailty of the worldly kingdoms-the ebb and flow of a lost world captured in sin trying to do what is right in its own blinded eyes.

[DevonShire]

Yes those are very flowery words. Harvey tends to be more succinct than that. His sentences are usually shorter, too. He doesn't do a lot of clauses tied to one sentence. He breaks them up into smaller sentences.

I'm perplexed by something though. I thought mennonites were pacifists, but you seem to be of the mind that war is beneficial or even necessary to the existence of a nation.

[Danfrey]

I think that Menno is drawing attention to the fact that worldly governments are controlled by the flesh. You will find a big difference between Pacifists and people who hold to a Two Kingdoms theology.

[DevonShire]

I think that Menno is drawing attention to the fact that worldly governments are controlled by the flesh. You will find a big difference between Pacifists and people who hold to a Two Kingdoms theology.

It would be great if menno were allowed to speak for himself. :)

He seems like an intelligent man who is able to articulate his own answers.

[MrJim]

Yes those are very flowery words. Harvey tends to be more succinct than that. His sentences are usually shorter, too. He doesn't do a lot of clauses tied to one sentence. He breaks them up into smaller sentences.

I'm perplexed by something though. I thought mennonites were pacifists, but you seem to be of the mind that war is beneficial or even necessary to the existence of a nation.

Generally nations are built on blood. Probably some exceptions out there but it's just one of those things that separate the Kingdom of Man from the Kingdom of God (though even there when the church mingled with man's kingdom blood was spilled "for God":()

[DevonShire]

Generally nations are built on blood. Probably some exceptions out there but it's just one of those things that separate the Kingdom of Man from the Kingdom of God (though even there when the church mingled with man's kingdom blood was spilled "for God":()

Yes, there is actually quite a much longer and more dramatic history of bloodshed in God's name than there is in peace-building in God's name.

[MrJim]

Yes, there is actually quite a much longer and more dramatic history of bloodshed in God's name than there is in peace-building in God's name.

:thumbsup:Careful now, you are starting to sound a little more anabaptist than baptist:P

[DevonShire]

:thumbsup:Careful now, you are starting to sound a little more anabaptist than baptist:P

My mennonite wife is a bad influence on me. ;)