Disqus - Latest Comments for jonpaulpope

Re: Nicolai Berdyaev, Christian Anarchist

jonpaulpope — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:42:26 -0000

Let me be clear. As long as I live in a state, I will submit to it. And as long as there is a state, God will, as with everything else in existence, use it in his providence. But I should be tirelessly engaged in tasks that undermine the state's false claims by speaking truth into a world of lies. Let us work diligently to see that "Kingdom" which will disolve all kingdoms--that Anti-kingdom Kingdom--on Earth as it is in Heaven

Also, part of what I love about Berdyaev is his taste for paradox--"the Kingdom of God is anarchy" has just the paradoxical ring to it to make it sound Godly, and by Godly, I mean Jesusly.

Re: Nicolai Berdyaev, Christian Anarchist

jonpaulpope — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:33:49 -0000

There are many symbolic descriptions of our relationship to the Godhead (husband-wife, father-son, king-subject, brother-to-brother, master-slave, landlord-tenant). But all these descriptions point to a reality which is beyond the scope of such words as "king." Of course there are times when thinking of Jesus as King is useful, promoting faithful works of obedience. But, metaphysically, we should probably not get too attached to such terms, lest we confuse the person of Christ with anything like that of earthly rulers. The same obviously applies to thinking of Jesus as your husband.

The New Jerusalem can be described symbolically as a monarchy (you are already in the realm of symbol and myth when you begin to speak of a heavenly city). Consider, though, the absolute freedom which comes from partaking of the divine nature in Christ--that in Christ, man is growing up to finally govern himself in righteousness before God, as was the original intention.

Berdyaev's point may be easier to stomach if we consider the "-archy" of anarchy to be the "rulers of this world" who practice their sovereignty by "lording it over people." This is not the lordship of Christ.

Re: Nicolai Berdyaev, Christian Anarchist

jonpaulpope — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:41:08 -0000

No, I'm pretty sure it's anarchy. That is to say, no rulers. Remember, God only allowed a monarchy in Israel as a concession to their childish desires.

Re: Douglass on Luther's Sphere-Theory

jonpaulpope — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:37:46 -0000

I am lumping men like Washington and Wilberforce into the category of "Christian politician." But I think you have it backwards. They were not seeking Christian solutions to political problems, but rather (as all politicians) seeking political solutions to moral problems. Politicians can only ever use political means--and all political means are fundamentally backed by coercion--from Caesar Augustus to Lex Rex (consider Rousseau -- that morning star of enlightened Democracy -- when he suggests that men must be "forced to be free.") I ask you, is there a place for Christians to forcibly coerce others into Godliness? If so, please square that away, once and for all, with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Or does this not have to do with Godliness per se? If not, what the hell are we doing embroiling ourselves in affairs which have nothing to do with following Christ? Do slaves need to be forcibly freed in order for them to be saved? Or has the gospel already set all slaves free? Did Christians in America really have to violently cast off the yoke of tyranny in order to worship the true God?

On your point concerning Israel, let me be clear. The Old Testament people of God, which was the political state of Israel (I'm not comfortable with separating these) has once and for all been been replaced by the shining city on a hill, of which O.T. Israel is the shadow--and this city is the body of Christ. I do not say that the Church, unlike Israel, is apolitical. Jesus has a politics. The Church has a politics. But the politics of Jesus are not of this world. As Bishop Wright would say, they are no doubt "for the world." But they must confound worldly power. There is nothing particularly confounding to the Nietzchean "will to power" in the most liberal of democracies.

All states are fundamentally the same. Don't think that every Roman Emperor had only evil intentions. I mean, come on, these people were offering Peace to the entire world! Regardless of motives and missions, all states operate by the same worldly machinations--the grinding of whose gears sends up the moans of a system in its death throes as it crushes the willing victim. Christ is the victim of and thus, the victor over this kind of power.

If Paul's words are spoken into a political world so much different than our own, then why try to appeal to them for your side of the discussion anyway?

All states are rival powers to the church, because their claims are always in competition with hers. We feed you. We protect you. We give you solidarity. We deserve your vows to us. We make it possible for you to be free. We comfort you when you are sick. We smite your enemies. We offer you peace and safety. Now I cannot argue that God does not often use governments to do good by Christians (he does this whether the government is killing Christians or whether the government is killing rebels). But not only is government unwitting in this service to God, but it is incapable of being so. The only institution on Earth that is actively in the business of God's life and love is the Church. And the politics of the Church, I repeat, is worldly power turned upside-down. Even the sword, the icon of retaliation and the basis of all secular power, is, for the Church, turned upside-down into the icon of personal sacrifice, a cross. Of course, this turning upside-down (or right-side up) happens only in the Church. As long as there are worldly powers, there will be swords. But as long as there is a Church, there will be a Kingdom of peace on earth. And this Kingdom is the possessor of the tree of life, the cross, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. Let all governments see the Church and know real power, real peace, real safety, real love. And let not the Church or those who go by her name turn her Cross upside-down to bear the sword. We are to be the icon of the new humanity for the old world with her old powers to look at in amazement. When we stoop down to play the old world's games with its power struggles, we are severely failing in this sacred mission.

I'll deal with your tangent later.

Re: Douglass on Luther's Sphere-Theory

jonpaulpope — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:24:44 -0000

Interestingly, Russia under the Christian tsars did do away with the death penalty. But that's beside the point.

Origen argues that public office should not be sought by talented Christians, but rather Church office. His argument is, I think, compelling, given that service in the Church is a nobler office than service to the State, and to whom much is given, much is required.

There is still some confusion, here, though. The state is ALWAYS a tool of God. He either uses it as an instrument of wrath or an instrument of blessing. But it is vital to note that St.'s Paul and Peter always speak of the state (The Roman Empire) as participating in the wrath and mercy of God UNWITTINGLY. Paul does not conceive of the possibility of Christians exercising the sword. The sword has been given to those "other" powers--the rival powers of the kingdom of God. What God is willing to use in his providence is not tantamount to moral approval. God makes straight lines out of crooked sticks, but that does not make the sticks any less crooked.

So what about the Christian involved in the state? If he conducts himself fully in accordance with the mandates of Jesus' and the apostle's teachings, his political career will be shortlived. A commitment to the ethics of Christ are bad for "statecraft."

Re: The Revolution of Peace: Douglass on St. John's Apocalypse

jonpaulpope — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:27:51 -0000

I'm glad you liked this, and thanks for the edit.

Re: The Revolution of Peace: Douglass on St. John's Apocalypse

jonpaulpope — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:07:19 -0000

Though this predates the most recent Credenda by 40 years, it's worth noting how similar Douglass's thoughts are to another Douglas I know.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:00:52 -0000

Sorry. You're right. Though Jesus does refer to the New Testament (the Eucharist), he doesn't use that word for scripture.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:52:48 -0000

What I mean is the Church (and Jesus) thought it appropriate to distinguish between the two testaments. Let's not worry about appearing dispensational. The fathers were affirming this distinction-within-unity long before Ryrienonsense hit the scene.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:39:31 -0000

Yes, Al. The two are one. But the one is also two (lest the Church be scandalized)--and the latter illuminating the former n'est pas?

Re: Douglass on Romans 13

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:16:07 -0000

Do nothing? Hell no. Read the previous post in which I quote Douglass on "the revolutionary."

Re: Douglass on Romans 13

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:14:32 -0000

Oh, heck yes. Let's get together. I'll email you our contact info.

Re: Wunderkammer - America is the greatest force for good in the...

jonpaulpope — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:12:57 -0000

Word, Kaleb. Flee the wrath to come.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:27:10 -0000

Absolutely not, thank Jesus.

Re: Douglass on Romans 13

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:03:43 -0000

Again, I would ask what you mean by "a place in the world." Do you just mean the bare minimum of simple existence? Does Jones, or do you, assign physical retaliation a positive moral status? Negative? What? I really am going for understanding here. Can God take the bloodshed of this world and use it for good? We know he does. But as Douglass points out, this is a far cry from justifying lethal violence, much less encouraging Christians to engage in "obedient homicide."

As regards your final point, if I proof-texted my argument, would that be enough for you?

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:44:02 -0000

How true.

I like the comparison to a mystery novel. The answers to all the shadowy and vague stuff at the beginning come towards the end. We get to the part with all the answers and everything at the beginning that seemed so mysterious seems so clear--but only in the light of "whodunit". My question was whether or not the NT, or specifically the Gospel, is the "whodunit" bit of the mystery novel.

Would it be a better question to ask which is more clarifying, "The Law and the Prophets" or Jesus?

Re: Douglass on Romans 13

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:03:29 -0000

Good question. I am close to being in agreement entirely with Jones' theses. And I think the above quotation is right down his alley.

That said, his 14th thesis is pretty confusing to me. Why he doesn't just come out and say that violent retaliation is morally off limits for Christians is difficult to understand. It's very existense is an "admission of communal failure." And yet, "it has some place" (can this be said of anything else?). I'd like for him to specify what place that is. And whether, if that "place" cannot be justified, it ought to be preached against. If he clarifies this point by saying that it has "a place" but only insofar as Satan has "a place," then I've got no problems with the theses as a whole.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:42:02 -0000

Nice. But I wonder if it's possible for two texts to interpret each other. Right now, I'm willing to say that the OT provides a context for the NT, but not an interpretation. I agree that approaching Hebrews without a knowledge of the OT is a fool's errand, but only because you wouldn't understand what's being interpreted. You wouldn't be missing the interpretation because Hebrews is the interpretation.

Re: An open poll.

jonpaulpope — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:25:15 -0000

Great answer, Al, as per youzsh.

Do you think that in general, though, the New Testament is meant to be the clear lens through which the messy Old is interpreted?

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:17:13 -0000

And by the way, you're right that there are things in the Old Testament to "get around" or interpret. But I would rather choose to interpret the Old Testament as the shadowy, vague thing that Hebrews tells us it is, rather than treat the teachings of Jesus as if they were unclear, dark, and generally negotiable. You are mistaking the light for the shadows, my friend.

And please, if you have the courage to come around here again, do tell us who you are. We love meeting new people!

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:03:23 -0000

Nice one tough guy. Anonymous comments are so manly.

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:02:55 -0000

Right, Sean. I was using the current media usage of "jihad" to describe what might more aptly be defined as Holy War. Indeed, Christians have a jihad of their own--only it doesn't look like Muhammad's.

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:08:14 -0000

Is the forcible liberation of Christians suffering physical persecution not the right thing to do at all times? Or is it only sometimes the right thing to do?

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:46:01 -0000

So, you would say that keeping innocent Christians from being killed is tantamount to saving them? What if these persecuted Christians tried to stop you by insisting that you not add to the violence in their war torn lands? What if they said they would rather die for their faith than have you "saving" them by killing people? What would you do? Just curious.

Re: Wunderkammer

jonpaulpope — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:14:16 -0000

Jihad is not for conversion. Jihadists are rather straightforwardly interested in the extermination of the kuffar (non-believers) whom they see to be obstinate and very real threats. So, you would be in favor of fighting Islamic Jihad with Christian Jihad?

How people discriminate between "Holy War" (boo, hiss) and "Just War" (hurrah!) is beyond me.