Chris: The problem with the humility of making mistakes is the assumption that there is not already a system in place for said mistakes. While often lauded as a strike against the death penalty (due to costs), the appeals process is designed to ensure that mistakes are not carried out to the level of killing the inmate. If you added a fully Christian system with the current appeals process, would the definition be humility or milquetoast?

Ronald: While I agree with the point that the tower of Babel shows us God’s grace, I am not sure that it is keeping a person from sinning as much as keeping a person from sinning further. Small distinction, I know. The sin had already been committed in the mind, which Jesus told us was the starting point of sin. (Don’t worry, I am not going to say Racca in here. ;>) I am not sure I agree with everything that Edwards espouses, but I can go along for the ride. I have also heard the correlary between eternal damnation and God’s grace: by being consumed by an eternal fire, the focus of the individual is on blaming God rather than himself. Plus, he does not have to realize that he is eternally separated from God. Very powerful thought that God would rather have us experience eternal pain for which we could blame him than the far worse pain to realize we are eternally separated and it is our fault.

Eric: Chunky or crunchy is my favorite, except when cooking. ;> ... and briefs. Boxers bunch up with jeans. Although boxers are nice when you can run around in your underwear.

On a light note, here is a story about a man that wants to change his name to “god” (lower case, of course). His reasoning is to get himself out of a life of perfectionism.

Michael: The death penalty is first mentioned, as you mention, in Genesis, where it is a life for a life. Additional reasons for the death penalty (primarily by stoning) include bodily sins (adultery, homosexuality), which fit into the body as a temple idea, and for blasphemic acts. There were other acts that were abominations (AV), which always made one unclean, but did not always bring death. The primary use of the death penalty, by man, was taking a life, however.

Jesus was quite plain on being a fulfillment of the law, rather than a replacement, so it would require taking Christ’s message way out of context to suggest that Jesus abolished the death penalty. The modern church does use this form of “hermeneutical gymnastics” to do all sorts of things. I have even seen a treatise on how the bible teaches abortion is both moral and acceptable (admitedly not yet endorsed by any mainline denomination).

Um, I’ll put you down as, um, both kinds of PB, and um, er, let’s see, um, briefs. I guess. I have to go now.

Dudes – peanut butter is peanut butter. I like mine with a spoon. As far as the type of under garment I prefer…well…I enjoy a burlap thong. It gives me the flexibility to actually wear underwear without dishonoring the kilt, wile being rough enough to remind me why highlanders don’t wear em at all…you asked.

You mean to tell me that the only thing between you and me is a thin layer of gabardine?

Thanks, all of you who have participated in the survey! I’m going to wait until 5:30 EST to tally the results, so any of you still waiting to weigh in, please do it today!
I’m going to take the results and write a proposal and apply for a government research grant. Wish me luck!

This is for Mike B: “I’m out there, Jerry, and I’m llllovin it!”

Crunchy!! You have to use crunchy, otherwise your tongue has no traction when trying to lick PB off of the roof of your mouth. Briefs. I wore boxers throughout high school (even played high school basketball in them. Ouch!) but switched back to tighty whiteys in college. Best decision I ever made.

A quarter of a million French are marching in the streets because they are afraid of this guy. I read the interview…..if they don’t want him, send him over here.

So far, the fan mail on the Razormouth article is good. I’m sending the all the Easter article, and the Piper article if they get nasty.

Does anyone else think that the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) is an example of God’s mercy? That in a fallen world, common grace commands and allows different nations and cultures because this is a restraint on our evil natures, and potentially allows some cultures to preserve values of truth and goodness better than other cultures? (IOW, one world culture removes this restraint on our evil natures, and we are actually seeing that now as decadent Western values take over other cultures that have resisted them.)

Eric: OK, OK (shifting into semi-serious gear)... PB Creamy. Boxers. (shifting out of semi-serious gear)...

You may all ask me for my autograph later, now that I have hit the big time. Now- if I would just get my cap!
I am looking a the Revelation pasage(s) and thinking about how the Gospel redeems Nationalism, which will somehow be the article I write about my agreement/disagreement with 95Ts.
DGC: I agree with you on Wink. I have used some of his material on Bible Study in the past and liked it, but when seminary recommended his approach to the powers, I bogged down quickly. I think there is a continuity across the board in spiritual warfare, but the Wink approach seems heavily loaded to come out as anti-corporations, anti-government, etc. Again, I think we need some work on the Fall and Common Grace. Common Grace is the key for me. Just how much did God abandon our fallen world? I’ll have more to say about that later.

Chirs: I would say that a theological framework operates in two ways. It creates the presuppositional structure for Biblical interpretation. (I will not buy anyone who says the just read the Bible. Everyone has a culture, a hermeneutic and a box of presuppositions) Then it is confirmed and developed as scripture is interpreted within the initial framework, and thereby builds a Biblical/Systematic theology. I will demonstrate in the future how these are essential when we move off the nationalism debate.

Speaking of which, I would be interested in how the group would see these verses from the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation, especially the reference to Kings and national cultures being part of the heavenly city.: Revelation 21:24-26 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it.

And on the death penalty, since it is endorsed specifically and clearly in Genesis 9:6 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Since this was before the civil and ceremonial laws were given, it is clearly part of the moral law. In fact, I may be wrong, but I do not believe there is ever a death penalty in the Bible for a civil or ceremonial offense that was not primarily a moral offense. Saying Matthew 5-7 trumps Genesis 9 is the kind of hermeneutical gymnastics that bother me big time. It posits an understanding of Jesus apart from scripture, and employs him to pass judgement on scripture by cancelling out clearly spelled out passages. Its the same hermeneutic used to approve homosexuality. Do we really believe that the early Christians would have said Genesis 9 no longer applies? Are we to believe Jesus told them after his resurrection that Genesis 9 no longer applied? What kind of dispensationalism is that turning into?

Eric: The problem we have, making us figure many items is figurative, is we do not focus on eternity. Jesus is asking us to cut out anything that will cause us to sin. There probably is some figurative language, now that I think of it, as the mind sins, not the hand and the eye. But, we do see that Joseph ran away from sin, which is the same we are asked to do. I may have been a bit too emotional on this one.

Chris: not sure I see the correlation with opposing the death penalty and humility. Punishing someone for murder via capital punishment has no direct tie in to humility.

“Boxers! How do you wear these things? They’re bagging off, they’re rising in… and there’s nothing holding me in place! I’m flipping, I’m flopping… What am I gonna do? I’m going crazy in these things.”

I haven’t read Yoder since seminary. (Since we have a Yoder on BHT, I just defer to him.) I was gaining an impression from some of the schools represented more than churches.

Bart, is there anything you’d like to tell us?
Sweet.
Brilliant.
Sickening.
Why civilization is at stake.

Chris: (Cautiously checking behind me…) OK. I am talking about Biblical Systematic Theology: Calvin, Grudem, Reymond, Berkhof. Not a preexisting sytem, but the development of a framework based on reading and interpreting texts, comparing, drawing conclusions and applying to major catagories. I look forward to seeing some works of that type in the KN library ;-). Though, again, reading your endorsements, its hard to see how it could happen.

Eric: Mary Ann

Okay, Scott. I figured there might be another literalist (besides myself) on here. I am referring to peanut butter (although it would be interestig to see what people might have come up with on their own—besides milk). Now that I’ve cleared that up, let’s have your real answers. Don’t throw my survey off!

1. It depends. I perfer my milk creamy.
2. Boxers. Sometimes inside my clothes.

Bart: When Angus becomes secretary of war, here is where we start. Our lying, terrorist financing, ungrateful, Christian persecuting, corrupt, friends the Saudi Royal family. As Ann Coulter said post 9/11…...No, I’ll let you read it for yourself. The last paragraph.. Creamy. Both, depending on the mood.

Okay, I’ll start.
1. Crunchy, definitely.
2. Briefs, usually, although I keep vowing to convert to boxers exclusively. A lifetime of tighty whities is hard to overcome.
I eagerly await the rest of your answers!

MODERATOR HAT ON: Hey guys! I’m not in any way displeased with the conversation, but I will flash a yellow light to be sure and pat one another on the back as always and keep the humor frequent and generous. It has been an amazing discussion, but…..HERE IS MY MODERATOR POINT: If we are discussing issues where we are plainly precommitted to opposing positions, lets not batter at one another’s arguments to the point of frustration. Our presuppositions are clearly quite different on several issues, and our arguments and outcomes follow. The important thing is, even with those whose views irritate us, to keep respect for the other person’s journey at the forefront. I think we are safe on all counts, but as I said, the yellow light flashed once or twice. Now, back to throwing chairs and bottles at the new guy. Where’s Chris…... ;)

Chris: Your views on systematic theology are very confusing. I grew up among Baptists who said no creed but the Bible. Then everything that came out of their mouth was according to their unwritten creed. As I said, proclaiming that the scriptures are your stopping place seems, to me, irrational. We read, interpret, think, compare text with text and come to conclusions. Those conclusions describe our views on revelation, authority, God, sin, etc. the various categories of Systematic theology. Labels and personalities can come and go, but how do we get by saying “My view is the Bible” in a discussion with other people who believe the Bible just as strongly? That does seem to be an argument for some other kind of superiority.

I am also confused on how people who wrote such a long and detailed document full of so many presuppositions and affirmations and denials feel OK about that effort, but reject systematic theology and the development of platforms and positions as going beyond a “Bible only” position? You’ve cited the SC, which is systematic theology. What’s the consistency here?

BART: I LOVE YOU MAN!!! Your post reminding us of what evil men have done was so appreciated. I totally agree with you and keep that mind and pen sharpened and on the board. Never sedate Angus. I thought about the young man I wrote about in for our school’s web site who just returned from Afghanistan. What he did for me and my family was a beautiful, wonderful and right thing that I hope my son would aspire to do. We owe this whole country of ours the one I find rather one sidedly analyzed in 95Ts- to young men like Mark and thousands of others who did the right thing. I have to say that when I read the statements in 95Ts about Germany and Vietnam, I couldn’t believe it. I’m glad to know you were feeling similar things. Now, where the hxxx is my hat?

Okay, I’ve got a couple of questions for everyone (and yes, Bart, I got the Cool Hand Luke reference).
1. Crunchy or Creamy?
2. Boxers or Briefs?
I’m trying to determine any correlation.
Sorry, Denise, about the second question. You can substitute any underwear dichotomy you like.

Bart: Actually pacifism is quite biblical, except when the LORD commands otherwise. For example, look at: ”(Deut 3:22) Do not be afraid of them; the LORD your God himself will fight for you.”
ทIt might just be me but don’t think I ever denied that.
The argument that we cannot be pacifist because the rest of the world is not is weak. It mirrors the comment of the communist proletariats who claimed the financial situation of all would never be equal until the entire world was communist.
ทI didn’t say that. In fact the statement above assumes that my stance is rooted in the fear of the rest of the world. My statement is rooted in the fact that we should kick butt because we can. I have a tendency to base everything I do on the “Can I kick his a**” scale. So, since we have a reason, let fly.If we had the faith to trust God, it would be easier to remain pacifistic, as we would know that everything is according to God’s plan.
ทIf he has a plan, doesn’t that mean that the out come has been PREDETERMINED?
Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by the amount of faith in a mustard seed. Focus on the fact that we do not battle against flesh and blood. I am not saying that the United States should not retaliate, as it is a worldly society. I also believe we need to defend ourselves, but that is a worldly perspective, in many ways. We need to spend at least as much time praying as we are retaliating, if not much more. That is where our society has become weak, even though it is militarily strong.

ทThe battle we fight is a battle of the spirit of God versus the spirit of the world and that battle is directly related the way we personally interact with those in our sphere of influence. And you are correct we do need an equal portion of prayer, but I don’t recall even discussing that issue.

What we have hear is a failure to communicate (That was for you Eric). SoI’m going to put this in clearer terminology:
I think the US should pound them into oblivion. Why? Because they killed 3,000 of our people. Do I need to pray for the situation? Yep. Am I at peace with the way our government is using force? Yep. Do I think that it is worldly to feel that way? Nope.
You see, I understand my humanity; I understand how fallen and how dirty I am. I also understand the glorious nature of God’s grace. I fully trust in his ability to take care of my family and me. Therefore, I refuse to spend all of my time postulating on things that are beautifully simplistic until I have convoluted them into a philosophical bucket –o- dung. If I have learned one thing in my lifetime it is this, I don’t have to prove myself to anyone or anything. Thus, I don’t care how large my intellectual man thing is. I’ll just be satisfied that it works.

Gouging your eye out and cutting off your hand are NOT figurative? Have you not heard of hyperbole? I’ve read the passage recently, and I can’t see how the context pushes us to take Jesus literally.
I’m bummed. We used to have more fun in here! Come on, people! Remember the good ol’ days! More beer jokes!

Chris: This is almost real time blogging. I am not overly concerned with the death penalty, as I find that few innocents actually get thrown on death row. I have a lot of solice in the fact that we have an appeals process that catches the few. I saw the report on IL, but much of it begs the question. However, I do oppose a system that looks for convictable rather than truth. The question should be “are we sure he is guilty?” rather than “can we convict him?”, as the second question leads to errors. As long as we are a non-Christian nation overall, I am against the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty, applied through a scriptural lens, is an effective means of punishment for the taking of a life. As our systems loses its scriptural glasses (or has lost them), I cannot support the ultimate penalty. As such, we are on the same side, in the context of the current system.

I have had debates over the death penalty, and find many that are opposed have very weak arguments. While one can be opposed to something on an emotional basis, it should not be brought out into the public forum. The arguments generally brought up, that are non-emotional are:

1. The cost – cost should not be an issue in right or wrong, so the fact it costs more (via appeals) to kill someone than to incarcerate is a non issue, at least in a logical debate.

2. The morality – punishment for crime is not immoral.

3. It is not scriptural – what?

4. It is hypocritical – the death penalty and abortion comparison. Apologiessince I pegged you incorrectly on this. Once again, it is innocence versus guilty that breaks down this argument, as no-one can ever claim the baby is guilty, and it is hard to put forth an argument that few, much less all, inmates on death row are innocent (meaning did not commit the crime, not the legal definition).

Ultimately, when you debate, most will fall into the “I just feel that way.” As I cannot change feelings, I bow out at this point. I do, however, think that there is a good logical argument about a flawed system (the one you bring up) and is why I, while not opposed to the death penalty, am opposed to the implementation of the death penalty in the United States.

Chirs: One more thing. I realize that it is likely that we are arguing many of the same things. As such, I regard this more as a forum of debate than an argument. As brothers in Christ, the important issue is not abortion or the death penalty, but that we both wroship the same God and have accepted His gift of eternal life (or been elected). Beyond that, if I ever seem that I am angry, or offend you, please accept my apologies in advance, as that is never my intent. Cum grano salis! (with a grain of salt).

Chris:
Not sure I agree with you on Christ. While He did not interfere with those sinning, neither does the father. Even in the Old Testament, God rarely stops sin, but requires payment for the sin. God could have stopped David from sinning, but generally forced payment in the death and sickness of the Israelites. The same is true of Moses (striking the rock rather than waving the staff meant he would not enter the promised land, etc.) and other biblical figures. Biblically, other than punishment, can you name a place where God interfered with a sin in progress? I cannot think of one off hand.

Even with the temple. Did God interfere with sin, or did he exact payment (penalty) for their sin? The fact they were caught in a life of sin when the punishment came does not make interference the primary goal.

Christ did, however, preach a very strong message against sin. Is his speech literal or figurative when he asked us to gouge out our sinning eyes or cut off our sinning hand? It is hard to take this figuratively when you look in context. Now, I do not believe that Jesus wanted us to maim ourselves, as confession and repentence are a better means, as it allows God to take care of the sin (through the death of Christ).

As far as the death penalty, should our focus, as Christians, be on its abolition, or on the salvation of those on death row? This life is a temporary part of our existence. How long is a hundred years (I should be so lucky) against eternity? Can you draw a dot small enough? The Christian that dies on death row for his crime suffers very little in light of paying for his crime, as God is big enough to cover this sin, as well. That is grace.

In human terms, I am much better than Adolph Hitler. In Godly terms, I stepped across the same line with my sin that Hitler did. I require His grace to get eternal salvation. There is only one who never required that grace, and that was God incarnate, the eternal Word through whom all things were made (John 1).

Bart: Actually pacifism is quite biblical, except when the LORD commands otherwise. For example, look at: ”(Deut 3:22) Do not be afraid of them; the LORD your God himself will fight for you.” The argument that we cannot be pacifist because the rest of the world is not is weak. It mirrors the comment of the communist proletariats who claimed the financial situation of all would never be equal until the entire world was communist.

If we had the faith to trust God, it would be easier to remain pacifistic, as we would know that everything is according to God’s plan. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by the amount of faith in a mustard seed. Focus on the fact that we do not battle against flesh and blood.

I am not saying that the United States should not retaliate, as it is a worldly society. I also believe we need to defend ourselves, but that is a worldly perspective, in many ways. We need to spend at least as much time praying as we are retaliating, if not much more. That is where our society has become weak, even though it is militarily strong.

Chris: Putting abortion and the death penalty as co-equals is a very emotion argument. First off, in abortion, the life taken is an innocent; in the death penalty, each one is guilty (legally) and it is rare that a case comes up where a person did not commit the crime. It is even rarer (if not non-existent) that the individual was a sterling citizen. In abortion, we are talking irresponsibility (except in certain hard luck cases (mother die, baby die or deformed, incest and rape) of individuals who feel it would be inconvenient to not have a choice to kill their unborn offspring (not murder, as murder is a legal term), the child has not done anything that requires a penalty be paid; in the death penalty, we are saying that the penalty for certain crimes is to pay with your life. Scripturally, the death penalty is acceptable, if not commanded; abortion is not. I will agree with you if you would like to argue that we should rethink the death penalty in our society, as politics often convict people rather than true evidence, but to call it evil in the same manner as abortion is quite offensive.

If you truly want the scripture to dictate our politics, a stronger argument could be made for the death penalty than against, as Jesus himself said “I have not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it.” The act of stopping the stoning of the woman caught in the very act of adultery is the best argument against the death penalty, but, in context, is designed to reflect more on the grace of God and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees than to say no one should be held responsible for breaking the law. In our Christian society today, grace often means removing responsibility, which is not the intent of grace. One is meant to be accountable and responsible for his actions; grace does not remove that.

MichaelS: While I am loath to assign labels to people, I do concur that people without an argument often throw names and labels. If you disagree with a homosexual that he was born that way, you are homophobic. If you disagree with reparations for slavery (or anything that Cynthia McKinney says ;->), you are a racist. If you quote scriptural reasons why you oppose something, you are intolerant.

Unfortunately, name calling works, as most people are not willing to risk standing up to the label. They would rather defend why they are not the label than continue to argue their point. In logical terms, the fallacy is known as an ad hominem (against man).

You silly English kniggits! Go away or I shall taunt you a second time! I love the Holy Grail! One of my professors yesterday was talking about Jeremiah and how you can’t just flash your call out there like some kind of badge and expect people to submit to that. “I’ve been called by God; do what I say!” As an illustration he played the clip about King Arthur telling those peasants that he was their king. “Help! I’m being repressed!”

Anyway, Michael, I’m with you in your response to my post. I was just trying to point out the similarities and contrasts between the two positions. I think, if nothing else, Luther displays a die hard belief in human depravity. In “Temporal Authority” he says that if everyone were true Christians there would be no need for government or the sword. I think by true Christian he meant someone without a trace of that original fallenness (I guess a true Christian is what we’ll be when we come into glory; I don’t know). Of course, he knew that no human could be completely devoid of original sin so we need government and we need Christians to be a part of that.

She turned me into a newt!

Now… tell us, or we shall say “Ni” to you…

Oh… and while I’m at it, here’s the historical front page of the Onion from April 22, 1906.

Oh, by the way, I got my hat. Thanks! It is so cool.

Bart, you are SO my hero! Loved your post! I also love allusions, and this group loves to make them! We have Seinfeld, the Simpsons, Looney Toons, Shakespeare, and the Princess Bride, and I’m sure there are some I’m forgetting! I love it when a plan comes together! Smashing!

Chris S: Here’s an interesting article on The Death Penalty. And again, I would recommend Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto on the matter of a Christian perspective on politics.

No one has sedated Angus. I simply haven’t seen anything more than an ultra philosophical mish mash of “I’m smarter than you” rhetoric. And, frankly, it kind of bothers me.

Concerning the issue of Pacifism, you see, to me pacifism is a perspective generated wholly by an inordinate amount of fear concerning conflict. Just so you know, now is not the time to bring Mohammed Ali into this.

The scripture is very clear on all of the points that Chip mentioned. However, I’m wondering if Matthew 5 was designed to serve as a function of interpersonal interaction, rather than a way to define the attitude of a government.

I will be the first to admit that I have a HUGELY bad temper (Scottish – can’t help it). However, I am teaching my children the importance of what it means to truly love your neighbor and pray for those who persecute you. I am teaching them what it means to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile. And, I am teaching my children to defend themselves – should the need arise. This is only in the case that all other avenues have been exhausted. As I feel quite certain that the Jesus who cleared the temple would not want my children or myself to just sit still and allow personal injury to occur.

With that said, it is important to say that I do not intend to demean the perspective of any pacifist. I understand that a perspective of pacifism is a very personal one. So, by saying that it is rooted in an inordinate amount of fear of conflict, I am speaking to the motivating psychology of the issue. Not to the personality who has these feelings.

As far as the way our government has handled it’s response to 9-11-01, I must say that it is my opinion that we have not gone far enough. The Angusonian perspective dictates that the only response to that action is to strike with so much fury that the entire world is stricken with fear and trepidation at the very thought of action against the United States. Period. As I have stated before, we are the “By God” United States of America. The people groups of the Middle East should be thankful that we haven’t just taken their oil and told them to do something about it. They should be thankful that this country has had common decency to deal with them within the context of a business relationship thus far. With all of the acts of violence that have been committed against this country, we have displayed a pretty even temperament to this point.

Let me just remind you of a few:

1.Beirut: 300+ marines murdered
2.Somalia: 17 (I think) rangers murdered in the streets
3.Iran: US Hostages taken
4.Afghanistan: US Hostages taken
5.Yemen: 19 (I think) sailors murdered on their ship
6.Pakistan: US civilians murdered in church
7.North Africa: 2 US embassies blown up via the Al Queda terrorist network
8.New York:
a.Egypt Air Flight 990
b.WTC bombing in 1993
c.9-11-01
9.Scotland: Pan Am Flight 803
10.Oklahoma City: 168 murdered at the Alfred P. Morrow building (as there are indications that this was in part sponsored by Saddam Hussein)

These ten instances have been within my lifetime alone.
Never engage in a battle of wits with a Sicilian (or Scotsman) when death is on the line.

Concerning the dichotomy between the pro-life and death penalty arguments:
Chris S: I only have one question (as I assume that you are in opposition to the Death Penalty), why did Christ allow the condemned thief (who made a profession of faith) to die next to him?

In case you missed it, Happy Earth Day to everybody! Yay, Earth! It’s the best inhabitable planet we know of…

Chris S: Good morning. I think by saying, “we have to let the Scriptures determine our politics and not vice versa,” you are assuming that that is not the case with those of us who choose to call ourselves conservatives.

All right, Chris S: An oblique Shakespeare reference! I love it!

ScottW: You cracked me up with the Marvin the Martian stuff! Funny!

C’mon Chris. Liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than saying one thing is true and another is false. Are you a relativist? People who say abortion is OK with God are wrong. Those who say God calls it the slaughter of the s are right. Those two positions are held by the two nt blocks of political/social/religous thought in this ure. Saying so is an exercise in truth. How do you get above issues like good and evil? Check out my IM piece on “Singing Praise Choruses With Barbarians At the Gate.”

BTW- I have a large unpublished post sitting on my home computer that Blogger wouldn’t take. It will arrive later this afternoon. That’s what Scott is responding to.

Michael S: It has been my experience that the reason liberals so often resort to name calling is because they really don’t have any solid facts or arguements to stand on. Alec B. and Michael M. can’t successfully attack Bush’s job in office because he’s doing exactly what he said he would do. They can’t call him a liar, so they call him an idiot, or an enemy of the earth. Enemy of the earth? What is he, Marvin the Martian? Is he planning to blow up the earth with his Illudium Pu-39 Explosive Space Modulator to give him a better view of Venus? No. He’s drilling for oil so we won’t have to be dependent on true terrorists for our fuel.

The downside is that the name-calling really works. It’s childish and stupid, but it works. I think that’s a sad commentary on the American system today.

MatthewJ: One of the things I like to bring up with my pacifist friends is what would happen if we dropped a hundred Christians off on an island and told them to form a country. Would they have law enforcement? Would they have capital punishment? Would they allow police to use lethal force? I think it is a good thinking exercise because it avoids the escape hatch of having the unbelievers do all the dirty work.

Everyone: One of the aspects of IM that I like the most is bringing out the true nature of liberalism. When I was a liberal, it was these things that moved me to examine my presupposition that I was really morally superior to conservatives. Well, here is another shining example. We have a bit of a flap going among Southern Baptists because the International Mission Board (IMB) has reversed a position against having missionaries sign the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, the pathetic little confession Southern Baptists use. There are still some liberals in the ranks of the missionaries and a few are saying No to this and the liberal SBs are making a big case of it, wanting to look like persecuted Christians being hounded to the stake by mean fundamentalists and Calvinists. (Please- have some cheese with your whine.) So one of these missionaries says that the chairman of the IMB is aiding the “Spiritual terrorists” who are wanting missionaries to sign this thing. I mean, not that being paid by the denomination ought to imply any accountability!!! What a terrible, coercive notion. (Sarcasm present in the room.) But I was really taken by the analogy- “Spiritual terrorists.” Remember when the Democrats said that the GOP Right was the “GOP Taliban?” This sort of stuff is SO TYPICAL of liberals. Alec Baldwin disease. I think it is a symptom of relativism- a stunted notion of right and wrong. I won’t comment on the obnoxious, mean nature of these comments. They speak for themselves. What I will say is what a shame that liberals think this will move the average person to their side of the debate! Like Al Franken saying Rush is a “Big Fat Idiot.” I know Rush lost a lot of fans on that comment, Al. Michael Moore’s hateful comments about President’s Bush’s intelligence. It just goes on and on.

Hmmm. You know, Luther’s writing on the two kingdoms (heavenly and earthly) has some continuity with the Anabaptist’s Schleitheim Confession. I think both make a good case as to why we need government (If we didn’t the wicked would run wild) and the SC says that God has ordained the sword. I’d like to know where the tension lies. Is Luther thinking that it’s OK for believers to wield the sword while the SC indirectly says that it’s the governments job, not ours?

ChipY: Good for you! Thanks for the input. (For those of you who forgot, Chip is our token Anabaptist, and is the reason Lutherans are not allowed near him, as we don’t want a nasty scene.)
Everyone: You Simpson’s fans may not have read one of Eric’s early IM pieces on the Simpsons and the concept of satire.

I want my hat! I have MikeB’s coming as well. hey Mike- you can wait for me to get into town, or you can come get it. I live next door to the OBI craft house.
Listen guys, it has been a banner day on here. A plug at Razormouth, great discussion with Chris, good posts from everyone- I raise one to all of you!
Don’t forget to read the Easter Morning piece on the sidebar, and the new article at IM. Peace to all and good night.

I got my haaaaatttt! I got my haaaatttt! It’s sweet, Bart. I wish all baseball caps were made that way (except for the lining, but I’m cutting that out as we speak.).

Let me suggest the flaw in that position. The texts used are talking about how an individual Christian should respond to persectuion. I agree totally that we are to obey Jesus at that point. But it is another case entirely to say that a policeman shouldn’t stop a criminal, or a nation shouldn’t stop a terrorist. I sense that isn’t entirely your position, but every pacifist I talk to uses these texts to define what a nation should do for the general good in a common grace understanding of justice and compassion, and it just doesn’t work.

Thanks for the reply. I am not going to suggest we start a full blown dialog about pacifism. I respect the position and I know it is sincerely held and Biblically defended. I don’t see how it can be Biblically substantiated without creating a tyranny of texts, one over the other, with someone as self appointed judge of what trumps what, but that is another post. If you would have supported an “interntional Police Force,” then I suppose you would support the goal of eliminating or damaging Al-Queda so that they do not unleash weapons of mass destruction on innocents. If there is a legal, non-violent, financial means to have stopped 9/11- or the weapons of mass destruction they would employ if possible, I’d like to know what it is. And International law- Chris, this is what I was talking about when I look at who is signing up for this position. International law is the U.N. telling us what we can do to defend ourselves. International law is the French and the other terrorist coddling nations telling us we can’t do anything to stop people who want to slaughter our citizens in our own country. International Law is America always wrong because we are rich and flawed. We may be rich, flawed and under the judgement of God, but there isn’t a rational or Biblical position that say I should let a man with an ax into my house to kill my loved ones when I can stop him, and the only way to stop these guys is sufficient, lethal force. They have no respect for international law. This is the crowd that shot the Pope!! Its fallen, sinful, miserable and necessary to fight this war for a comparative good of stopping weapons of mass destruction.

I am up to speed on my Bonhoeffer. I know that he wrestled precisely with the issues you guys are wrestling with on 95Ts. (Best pirate voice:) That’s why I brought ‘im up mate. I have a friend who is a Christian pacifist and I respect him totally- I know he has worked through this with great care because he has all the instincts the rest of us do when we see 9/11. I am raising these questions Chris because I am looking at some of the signees of 95Ts and- while I hear you loud and clear on a name does not imply the endorsement of the institution- I am drawing some hermeneutical implications. (This is the price you guys are paying for not listing any systematic theologians in your library, and for being Sojourners+Vineyard, a combination that had never occured to me. But then, I like Linkin Park and Sinatra ;)

Wink a partial hermeneutic. That’s better. Thanks.

Man… that piece on Easter in Jerusalem is good. Thanks for posting it, Michael.

I had tautologies once. They have a cream for that now.
They either have a cream for it now, or they don’t have a cream for it now :)

Oh… No worries… I just use me axe fer timber… :)

Everyone should read An Easter in Jerusalem. It was posted on DB and is very thought provoking.

IM is updated.
Chris and ScottW: You are demonstrating why it’s one of the best conversations on the web. Thanks for modeling gracious disagreement. (Scott- put down that ax. Speaking of which, who has Angus sedated?)
MikeB: I love ya man. Go for it. I will change the motto on the banner every so often too if you guys come up with something bright.
MatthewJ: Immanuel. or Emmanuel. or whatever its called.
ChipY: (Best scottish accent) C’MON YA GIRLIE MAN. GET IN HERE AND SPEAK YA PEACE!!!

ChrisS: I will probably respond to 95Ts in more detail in an IM column. I really appreciate your input and I hope you will stick around BHT for other issues, like where to get the best haggis. Chris, I sense the 95Ts are meandering a bit rather than saying we are wrong to be fighting the war on terrorism. Could you comment on this. I also have to ask if you really beleive that Walter Wink’s work is a Biblical hermeneutic that should interpret all of scripture. I find that startling. I respect his work and insights, but it is not a dependable overall hermeneutic. Also, as a reformed Christian, I have to ask if you feel the 95Ts are strong enough on the Biblical doctrine of common grace? Let me unpack that a bit as it relates to values preserved in this culture.

Clearly, America is a mess. We should be penning apologies to Sodom, etc. But in the common grace of God, America has preserved values that are not preserved in Islam or the East. The Judeo-Christian worldview is not represented consistently or faithfully here, but it is represented. We are not a Christian nation, but we still allow those who follow Christ the greatest influence of any nation on earth. The worldview that put those planes into the WTC is consistent, and the worldview that says it was evil and unjust is consistent as well, though the United States will never consistently live out that worldview. Basic human dignity, basic human value and the duty of good men to protect innocents from violence is part of our national value system. I know there is pride, sin and selfishness. But this isn’t freeing Kuwait for more oil. Chris- this is stopping people who would have nuked New York if they had the capability and still will if they can. In what version of Christianity is it right for people of principle and compassion to stand by in the name of Jesus and do nothing? Have you guys ever read Bonhoeffer? Was he wrong in seeking to kill Hitler? In my opinion, he was doing the Lord’s work. Awaiting a response.

Chris: Point 4, granted. Although it’s been my experience that MM and his ilk are more the exception than the rule.

Point 6: I’ve always maintained a seperation b/t Christian Theism and Deism, simply because they each have a distinctly different idea of the nature of God, the nature of man, and the relationship between the 2.

Point 7: I wouldn’t call it “simplistic”, although my interest in the Enlightenment as a major point of history is admittedly low. The Enlightenment, even with those who were Theistic, Deistic, or Atheistic, can still be boiled down to man’s self-idolotry. Sure, there were aspects that gave some fleeting comment of self-serving respect to the idea of God, but God was hardly at the center of the Enlightenment (I think you’ll agree here) – man was.

Point 8: I think we are in agreement. My point was simply that the foundation was Christian, even if minimally. The wearing away of that foundation came later in our history (I’d say early 20th Century).

Nationalism is a horse of another color. I don’t think there’s any Biblical problem with national pride, or with siding with your own nation when your nation is acting under the principals in the Word (eg. protecting innocent people, stopping a dangerous and aggressive dictator). But we, as Christians, cannot be blind to the fact that our nation has gone wrong in other areas – and we can hold no pride in them (40 million dead babies comes to mind), simply because we hold a responsibility to God (which is what I think the heart of your point is).

Either way, although I’m not in 100% agreement with these Theses (say THAT 10 times real fast), I think you’ve certainly got something that is worth discussing.

Peace to you.

MichaelS: Would you object to my posting “The Onion Headline of the Day” each day at the BHT, since you think The Onion is a “flat out brilliant” piece of satire?

Howdy, Chris. Although I’m certainly not going to argue that we are a Christian nation, I cannot deny the influence of the Gospel on the foundation of this nation. The “historical inaccuracies” in the theses that I refer to are as follows:

Point 4: Although Jesus is never specifically referred to in the documents which found the basis of the Republic, it can be understood that the Founders were mostly reared in Christian homes, and that therefore the word “God” can be used as a catch-all.

Point 6: Just a matter of point: most of the Founding Fathers were probably Deists, not Theists.

Point 7: The Enlightenment really only held sway over a couple of the major Founding Fathers: Jefferson and Franklin. If the Enlightenment, as a humanistic philosophy, had held as much sway as the Theses propose, it probably would not have allowed the inclusion of God in the documents at all, since the basis of the Enlightenment w2as that man was his own chief end.

Point 8: The fact is that the Founders couldn’t have ignored the socio-political reality of the church. Of the original 13 Colonies, at least 5 were founded (Mass, Conn, RI, Penn, Maryland – I’m trying to remember the others) purely on the basis of Christian beliefs.

I’ve got a few other issues, but I think the other people here at the Tavern are handling them quite nicely.

Great article. Do you know which church in Lexington is sponsoring the new seminary? I’m curious.

Yes, I want one of each. My snail mail is posted on my resume.
IM will be updated today. Look for this one on seminaries in KY.

I gotta earn a living. Ya’ll be nice to Chris. (BTW- we have a YODER in here!!) peace.

I don’t guess my post qualifies as “thoughtful analysis”. Oh well. Rigney, as much as I’d like to take credit for the Onion thing, that honor belongs to Scott Ward. I do agree with him, but he’s the one who penned the stuff about it and the Simpsons. Does anyone else think that the headline about the church rescinding the blessed status of the meek is funny? “Pope says, ‘Screw the poor.’” I can’t stop laughing.
Michael: I know you have money, you paid for my pizza ;) BTW, I can order videos for $10 or a 2 CD set for $8 (of the debate). I’ll probably write a check tomorrow. You want one?

For CHRIS SMITH when he arrives: Thanks for coming in to the BHT. As you guys predicted on your site, the 95Ts have been greeted with a variety of reactions in here, ranging from loud hoots to thoughtful analysis. (But it was late….and you know how it gets at closing time.) I have a question as well: Do you believe it is a legitimate option for Christians to renounce their U.S. citizenship rather than pay taxes to support a nation that is so clearly opposed to Yahweh?

MatthewJ: Go ahead. Sue me. I’m a Dave Ramsey Capitalist with piles and piles of cash.
EricR: Evangelism only is one variety of how fundmentalists manage to get everyone saved twenty or thirty times a year. If these people were actually serving God in ministries and worthwhile work and productivity, then the hamster wheel of of rebaptism might slow down. We can’t have that. BTW, where is that poker game?
We need a dog in here. Russell McFarland would be good.
The Onion Stays. News flash: Unbelievers are more funny than Christians. Sorry for the occaisonal salt in the wound and the not so occaisonal evidence of fallenness, but that’s the way it is. The Onion is flat out brilliant. The issue after 9/11: God calls news conference to clarify “Don’t Kill” rule. Great stuff.

Welcome to BHT Chris Smith from Kingdomnow.org, come to answer all our questions. WHo is buying the drink?

‘Morning, everyone. Bart, I got and appreciated the Seinfeld quote.
Michael S: Thanks for the plug
The 95 theses: I only got about halfway through. Then I started to feel like I had stumbled upon a secret mountain militia meeting.
Heard a guy on the radio last night (I’m like you, Michael S, I like to listen to whacky preachers too) who all but denounced as sin any attempt at anything in the church besides stark evangelism. I have heard this guy before, and (even though I irreverently said whacky a second ago) I sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) agree with him. But man, was he in rare form last night. His whole criteria, his mantra, in referring to anything that happened in the church was, “Was anyone saved?” He derided Sunday School, church education in general, training union-type activities, youth activities, etc. Everything that wasn’t “preaching.” It seemed odd to me that a person so dedicated to Christian ministry would be so hostile toward discipleship. I wanted to ask if the goal of ministry was to make someone recite the sinner’s prayer (blech, what memories that brings back) and move them out the door.
I agree with Matthew about The Onion. Satire is often not comfortable to those being satarized. Some of my fave Simpsons’ are the ones where religion is skewered. I certainly don’t usually agree with their take on God, but they point out some things about religion and the church that those in the middle of it are afraid to touch. I always think it’s interesting to hear an outsider’s opinion.

Dang it. My post didn’t go through.

Here it is, quick: the 95 Theses thing is interesting, but flawed. First, it tries to find specfiic scripture to line up with political opinon, instead of allowing scripture as a whole to influence political beliefs. Second, there are several glaring historical inaccuracies. I’m not saying our Founding Fathers were golden boys (Geo W and Th J’s escapades in the sack would make Bill C. look like a boy scout), but at least a good part of the foundation of our government is based, even if nominally, in Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Let me take this opportunity to recommend Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto as a balance to this.

Finally, Michael, keep The Onion. I think of it like the The Simpsons: it may not present aspects of evagelical Christianity in a pleasant light, but mirrors are rarely comfortable.

I’m going to sue you, Michael, for the 15 minutes of my life that I spent reading those 95 theses. I want them back ;) For those of you who have not read them, allow me to summarize: blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Sheesh!

Razormouth, ain’t that one of them rasslers? Or is it like that evil website, The Onion? ;-p It’s an Angus morning.

We are discussing the 95 Theses on the Idolatry of America by Evangelicals by the guys at Kingdomnow. Good comments DGC. More things missing from the 95Ts: A doctrine of common grace. A Biblical doctrine of sin. A theology of the church. (Hey guys- THE CHURCH IS NOT THE KINGDOM. There is the odor of medevil catholicism around that piece.) A theology of judgment. A theology of warfare, spiritual and otherwise. (News flash: Israel- an imperfect nation under God’s judgement- still had to deal with bad guys from time to time. Read the book of Judges.)

Everybody clean up. Joel Miller just mentioned BHT in Razormouth, and wrote to ask to run one of my pieces in Razormouth, so we may be getting visitors. This is your day to write something interesting.

Guests: If you would like to join us, just write campusminister@msn.com and it will happen.

Just spent some meaningful time in the Kingdomnow library. Frequent Names: Tolstoy (!), Ellul, Dorothy Day, Vernon Eller, Duke postmodernist Christians, various mainline liberals. Totally missing: Well, go see for yourself. Overall description: Sojourners+ Vineyard. (Now if that isn’t knocking down all fences I don’t know what is.) Fascinated by: Christian anarchy. Need to spend some time reading about: Marxism, Biblical hermeneutics, common grace, church and state in something other than a radical format, the antics of Marxist “Christians” in redestributing wealth…

ChipY: If you get to read this 95 Theses, tell me how much Anabaptist influence you see. I see quite a bit.

Hey DavidH! So glad you are back. I figured there had been a purge of Calvinists and you’d disappeared without a trace. Glad to hear you’ve been rescued. Now when the work load gets large, just call the BHT hot line and we will ALL come down and help out. We just need a place on the beach to stay in the off hours. Glad to know I am not alone in my confusion!

Hello, all. Sorry to be so silent for so long, but I’ve been out of town and/ or up to my eyeballs in speaking and writing for the [past three weeks. Sometimes I wonder if the death of the church won’t be because we all just slap wear out!

MSpencer: I read the theses and am at least as confused as you. There are such immense gaps of philosophical and theological and economic logic. I agree that the underlying motivation seems to be a slap at current US military involvement. The loss of balance between the defining of a Christian citizen or a citizen Christian was never more evident.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see anyone on it I guess because it has a lot of good points. I readily concede the idolatry of civil religion. Read Rigney on Patriotism, an excellent essay. But I guess I am a bit surprised in that Rob doesn’t have any books on DR that are heavily into the view of church and state in the 95 Theses, and he has been generally reformed in the articles/posts I’ve read, so I would have expected a more reformed view of the state. This comes from the House Church movement, which Rob is very much a part of. But I have to say that some of the stuff on there goes far afield of the way reformed people read Romans 13 and the whole church/state thing in the New Testament. It reads like too much Revelation combined with some theonomy.

I take it they didn’t want to join us in a pint of ale :-)
MichaelS: are you surprised to see Schlapfer on the list of endorsers of the 95 Theses?

I just got the sweetest piece of hate mail from someone who wanted me to know the grave evil of having a link to The Onion on my site. This is the problem with working around so many unbelievers. I’m just not properly shocked anymore. Gee- I took off all the wrestling links. What more do you people want?!

Ok, I have now read the 95 theses twice, and I have found plenty not to like. Starting from a seemingly solid theological foundation on Kingdom and State, the writers procede to then castigate America for not being the Kingdom of God and set up a variety of means whereby we can sorta become the Kingdom of God? I am confused. The state is not the Kingdom, but these guys pick out the flaws of America and then go to town saying that the entire nation is under the judgement of God and not blessed or used by God in any way because its founders and government aren’t a theocracy? I’m confused. Economic prosperity is evil unless we give it all away? What Jesus is selling that Marxist stuff? We’ve never done anything right in the world? We are under judgment because we killed German Christians and Vietnamese Christians in war? I am confused. We need to institute the year of Jubilee? Well hexx, let’s just install the whole darned book of Leviticus. Are these guys theonomists or what? They don’t seem to have the spine to say we have no right to support the war on terrorism, but I detect that in between the lines. I am going to ask Yahweh to send Martin Luther to these folks and explain the doctrine of the two Kingdoms and Romans 13, especially that the government is a “minister of God” in bearing the sword against the evildoer. (That btw was the ROMAN government Paul was writing about!) I’m torqued.

On the other hand . . . DON’T buy this guy a drink :-)