Seagoon's Replies to Nash

[Seagoon]

[I apologize if the following thread is just dead boring for everyone else]

Howdy Nash,

I'm going to chop this up into a number of replies for ease of reading...

You wrote in another thread:

But what that leaves us with is theologians cherry picking the bible for a set of criteria that would justify war, and then a theologian (in this case you) coming down in support of a particular war based on what is clearly a questionable interpretation of how this war actually meets that criteria.

With the utmost of respect, just war theory is hardly the result of "Cherry Picking" the bible. The clear teaching of scripture is that magistrates have been given the power to wage war, and indeed in the New Testament, the profession of "soldier" is not an occupation forbidden to Christians as say Thief or Prostitute would be. This would not be the case if the primary calling of soldiers (waging war) was a violation of God's commands in the same way that stealing things and having sex outside of marriage is.

For instance, when a group of soldiers ask John the Baptist the open-ended question "What should we do?" in Luke 3:14 he answers "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." Notice he does not command them to find a new vocation, in fact he tells them to be content with the salary they receive in their present profession. What they must do, however, is to stop acting sinfully in their calling and using the power they have unlawfully.

In Matthew 8:9-10 Jesus commends the faith of a Centurion even as the Centurion has used his authority as a commander of men as an analogy for Christ's heavenly power. In Acts 10, we see another Centurion, Cornelius praised as a godly man. Both of these men were saved, and neither of them was told he must leave his trade or that his calling worked against his faith. Contrast that with verses dealing with occupations like "Thief" -  "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need.  (Eph. 4:28) Thieves are expressly told that they will not inherit the kingdom, and that this is a vocational choice that has to be repented of (1 Cor. 6:10). Obviously an argument along the lines of well "soldiers don't hurt other people like thieves do" is ridiculous on the face of it. Their profession involves killing other people, and yet that killing is not called murder and the kingdom of heaven is not closed to them in the same way it is to the unrepentant murderer. (Rev. 21:8)

Historically, the churches that came out of the Reformation including my own denomination have always accepted this, confessing for instance: "It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion." (Westminster Confession, circa 1648)

The statements in the Second Helvetic [i.e. Swiss] Confession which were put together by Swiss Reformed (Protestant) churches and formed their doctrinal expression are even stronger, they condemned the Anabaptist belief in non-involvement in the state and absolute pacificism [The Anabaptists should not be confused with modern day Baptists. The Anabaptists were the fore-runners of groups like the Amish and Mennonites]:

"War. And if it is necessary to preserve the safety of the people by war, let him wage war in the name of God; provided he has first sought peace by all means possible, and cannot save his people in any other way except by war. And when the magistrate does these things in faith, he serves God by those very works which are truly good, and receives a blessing from the Lord.

We condemn the Anabaptists, who, when they deny that a Christian may hold the office of a magistrate, deny also that a man may be justly put to death by the magistrate, or that the magistrate may wage war, or that oaths are to be rendered to a magistrate, and such like things.

The Duty of Subjects. For as God wants to effect the safety of his people by the magistrate, whom he has given to the world to be, as it were, a father, so all subjects are commanded to acknowledge this favor of God in the magistrate. Therefore let them honor and reverence the magistrate as the minister of God; let them love him, favor him, and pray for him as their father; and let them obey all his just and fair commands. Finally, let them pay all customs and taxes, and all other such dues faithfully and willingly. And if the public safety of the country and justice require it, and the magistrate of necessity wages war, let them even lay down their life and pour out their blood for the public safety and that of the magistrate. And let them do this in the name of God willingly, bravely and cheerfully. For he who opposes the magistrate provokes the severe wrath of God against himself."
[Second Helvetic Confession, circa 1566]

So far from being "Cherry Picking" or novel this doctrine is both scriptural and was the long accepted viewpoint for Protestant Christians. Variations of it also exist within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Just war has long been regarded as part of God's Common Grace, in that without it life in a fallen and sinful world would be even viler and more unjust, and all men would be at the mercy of the most evil and wretched states states. If you think the state of the world is bad now, just consider what life would be like if states did not have the right to defend themselves against unprovoked aggression, theft, and violence.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Nash, you also wrote:

It seems to me that spiritual leaders, even if giving themselves a green light to support a war based on an interpretation of the bible, should then make sure that the criteria they bind themselves to be doubly, triply, and quadruply checked and met by the facts. In other words, spiritual leaders should error on the side of peace by default. That's just my opinion of course, and I don't wanna tell you guys how to do your jobs or anything.

Erhm, but here's what the guys who actually do your job said today:

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights."

This came from a coalition of American churches representing the World Council of Churches and includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches. It was the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade. They denounced the war, "accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

Also, on Friday, "the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."

I know that you would prefer that kind of statement from clerics, but allow me to give a little background on why I'm not on the same page.

Both the NCC and WCC are eccumenical groups made up largely of theologically liberal churches. [Their most theologically conservative member, the Orthodox church in America has been complaining about their stances for years.] For instance, the WCC has as members some of the most liberal protestant denominations including the Episcopalians (whom you will recall recently ordained a professing Gay Alcoholic, Gene Robinson, to the position of Bishop of New Hampshire) and the United Churches of Christ who also allow for the ordination of gay clergy. They are notable for the kind of denominations they don't include, namely the most theologically conservative and evangelical denominations (For instance the Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance & Evangelical Free Churches are not members). There is a more conservative association of denominations called the National Association of Evangelicals

Generally speaking their member denominations do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, or that belief in Him is necessary in order to be saved, most of them have long been preaching a social gospel which consists of the message that we have to be nice to one another, and build a more just world through the right application of liberal political ideas for years. In other words their theology is for the most part simply a religious mimicry of the progressive wing of the popular culture.  As a result, the membership in most of these churches has been dwindling for years. They have money, names, and power, but they are all declining. They close down more churches than they open.

So at their councils and meetings the primary issues they deal with are not theological, but political, and their statements are overwhelmingly supportive of the liberal political position on any subject. I could have guessed in advance where they would come down on the war in Iraq, detentions, and so on.

I, on the other hand, belong to a denomination (the PCA) that is not a member of the WCC and which split from the larger Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1973 over issues like the authority of the Bible, and whether our primary emphasis should be on preaching the Gospel of Christ Crucified for Sinners, and soliciting faith in Him, or getting embroiled in every political cause celebre'. The denomination we split from has gone on to major in national politics, and position themselves invariably on the left in almost every political and moral issue. They've supported abortion, gay rights, no nukes, and have condemned big tobacco, and Israel. They've even gone so far as to send a delegation to speak to Hamas.

Of course there is an equal danger that theologically conservative denominations like mine will simply become the opposite side of the coin and end up making their primary concern conservative politics.

Personally, I have stood against every attempt to do that in our denomination, even voting at Presbytery and General Assembly against expressly political overtures whose political aims I have agreed with. This is because I am absolutely committed to the principle that meddling in politics is not what the church was created to do, it is not our business, and just as the church does not want the State telling it what it may and may not believe and preach, we were not vested with the authority to legislate in the political arena. Or as Chapter 3 of the Book of Church Order puts it:

"Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold.  The officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the power of jurisdiction.

The sole functions of the Church, as a kingdom and government distinct from the civil commonwealth, are to proclaim, to administer, and to enforce the law of Christ revealed in the Scriptures.

The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force.  The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events.  The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church.  They are as planets moving in concentric orbits:  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)."

So I am appalled that the church, as the church, would gather together solely to promote a political agenda and tell politicians how they should legislate. I was as appalled by the WCC statements as I was by some of the comments at the King Funeral, and not because they were politically liberal, but because they were a prostituting of one's calling to be a minister of the gospel. For heaven's sake, if you feel your calling is to promote a political agenda, then become a politician or a member of the media, but don't turn the pulpit into a party political soapbox.

- SEAGOON

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Of course there is an equal danger that theologically conservative denominations like mine will simply become the opposite side of the coin and end up making their primary concern conservative politics.

............................. ............................. ............................

So I am appalled that the church, as the church, would gather together solely to promote a political agenda and tell politicians how they should legislate. I was as appalled by the WCC statements as I was by some of the comments at the King Funeral, and not because they were politically liberal, but because they were a prostituting of one's calling to be a minister of the gospel. For heaven's sake, if you feel your calling is to promote a political agenda, then become a politician or a member of the media, but don't turn the pulpit into a party political soapbox.

Well said.  This has been my major complaint with the S. Baptist association for years.  Our guiding principles should be leading us as far away from political arenas as possible, yet some of them just cant stay out of the spotlight.

[Hangtime]

All part of the PC Programming that we're indoctrinating our citizens with.

Religious Leaders get special dispensation from the media and the audience for outrageous political statements and behaviour.

Cause it's Not PC to criticise, belittle, marginalize or poke fun at the Church. And this includes Islamic 'churhes'.. most recent example being the horriffic silence in this country's media regarding the Cartoon Fiasco.

[SOB]

Fer cryin' out loud, is there a book-on-tape version?

[Rolex]

I think there is a 40 CD set available at Cracker Barrel.  

[Seagoon]

Hey, I started out with a warning that the thread would be dead boring.

Sorry, its an occupational hazard, I'm used to never having to deal with any issue in less than 30 mins or 3 pages of single spaced 12 point type, and I'm not bright enough to be able to answer anything succinctly.

[midnight Target]

Exactly which members of the WCC and NCC do not believe in the deity of Christ?

[Seagoon]

Hello Midnight,

Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly which members of the WCC and NCC do not believe in the deity of Christ?

Let's take the United Churches of Christ as an example. It is possible to be a UCC pastor and deny all of what are considered the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith without fear of ecclesiastical discipline. As such, the denomination has ceased to make this a "standing or falling issue." If you are quirky enough to actually believe that Jesus is God, well that's fine, but if you don't, that's fine too. Almost every theological issue, no matter how central it is to the what the Jude called "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" is considered something you can have your own private opinion on by denominations like the UCC. As one UCC pastor frankly put it: "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God." In fact, there are major portions of the UCC which believe that saying "Jesus is Lord" (which is a biblical doctrine Paul affirms is taught by the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:3) one is being "divisive" and "judgmental."

In any event, here is an article from a Northern NJ newspaper that shows just how far from a uniform belief in the foundational teachings of scripture the UCC has come (the UCC readily admits that they have no doctrinal consensus or means of ensuring any belief) and then a link to a article discussing briefly the theological implications of that:

Denomination debates declaration of Jesus' divinity

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

By JOHN CHADWICK
STAFF WRITER

It's a bedrock belief of Christianity - not a topic for debate.

Until now.

A venerable Protestant denomination - at the behest of some of its conservative members - is preparing to vote next month on a measure declaring that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and making it mandatory for clergy to accept his divinity.

It may seem like a slam dunk, but delegates for the 1.3 million-member United Church of Christ may reject the resolution. Several Bergen County pastors, who aren't delegates to the convention, said they expect the measure to fail.

"Religiously speaking, it sounds like apple pie," said the Rev. Raymond Kostulias of the First Congregational Church of Park Ridge. "But there is a judgmental quality to it that implies very strongly that those who do not agree with us are condemned or damned or hopeless - and that's exactly the thing that UCC is against."

Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which traces its independent mind-set back to the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock, is one of the most liberal and non-hierarchical Protestant churches in the nation.

The denomination, in its official statements, accepts Christ as savior and head of the church, but also approves of balancing Christian doctrine with personal conscience.

"If you join the UCC, you are not given a list of things and asked, 'Do you believe in this?' " said the Rev. Sherry Taylor, who represents the New Jersey churches in the denomination's central Atlantic conference. "There are no tests of faith."

But that brand of Christian liberalism is increasingly under attack from conservatives seeking to reassert the authority of the Bible. The Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, for example, face the threat of schism over gay rights. And the Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI, has emphasized a more orthodox vision of church teachings.

The handful of United Church of Christ churches that submitted the resolution - including a congregation in Woodbridge - say Christ's divinity is the biggest issue facing the denomination.

The three-page resolution declares that the United Church of Christ is now ridiculed by critics as "Unitarians Considering Christ."

The Woodbridge pastor said the denomination has to get back to basics.

"The whole point of this is that many of these people have a very fuzzy idea of faith in God," said the Rev. Albert W. Kovacs of the Hungarian Reformed Church. "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God."

A Haworth pastor said the conservatives have a point, though he added that the resolution is unenforceable and a waste of time.

"If you don't offer a risen Christ, you're not offering hope," said the Rev. David Boda-Mercer of First Congregational Church of Haworth. "If people are looking for answers, and they come to us and get a vague non-answer, but great food and musical programs, then I don't think we're helping them."

But others in the denomination disagree. Many Christians, they say, reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and lead full spiritual lives.

"We have people with all sorts of beliefs of what Christianity is - just like society does," said Barb Powell, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland-based denomination. "The difference is that our polity allows us to talk about it and discuss it with one another."

About 1,000 delegates - lay people and clergy - will vote on the measure declaring that the UCC is a "decidedly Christian denomination where Jesus is the Lord." It also requires all of the denomination's clergy to adhere to the doctrine. The convention, or synod, will be held July 1-5 in Atlanta.

The United Church of Christ was created in 1957, merging the Congregational churches associated with the Pilgrims with several other smaller, more conservative denominations made up of German, Hungarian and Swiss immigrants.

The denomination recently launched a provocative advertising campaign - "God is Still Speaking" - portraying the church as an alternative to conservative Christianity.

One commercial showed a church using bouncers to turn away a seemingly gay couple and racial minorities seeking to worship.

"Jesus never turned anyone away," the ad says. "Neither do we."

Conservatives within the denomination object to the campaign. Kovacs, the Woodbridge pastor, said his first complaint is with the title.

"They say, 'God is still speaking, he said. "I believe he's already spoken."
* * *

What it means

What's new: Conservative members of a venerable Christian denomination say the church isn't following the basic beliefs.

What's next: The United Church of Christ will vote in July on a measure by conservatives declaring that Jesus is the Lord.

What they're saying: "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God." - The Rev. Albert W. Kovacs of Woodbridge

Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary commented on the controversy, here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=125

- SEAGOON

[midnight Target]

Thank you for the response.. I checked the UCC website and read their constitution.

The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.

???

[rabbidrabbit]

So Jesus is their CEO?

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Thank you for the response.. I checked the UCC website and read their constitution.

 

???

MT,

All of the churches in the WCC are likely going to have some sort of statement of faith that refers back to the faith of the denomination at the time of its founding. For instance, the Anglican Church (which Americans know as the Episcopal Church) still technically has the 39 articles as its statement of faith. The 39 articles today would be considered both "fundamentalist" and "Calvinistic." Now those of you familiar with the Church of England at all, especially the Brits on the board probably couldn't point you to a single Vicar who is a fundamentalist or a Calvinist. In fact it would be a stretch these days to find an Anglican priest who believes that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and yet the 39 articles of his own denomination read:

"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved"

So, while the ancient confessional statements on the websites at the denominational headquarters aren't going to be explicitly Unitarian, that is often the defacto theology of much of the clergy in the denomination. For instance, this extract is from an actual overture to the UCC General Synod from members of that denomination:

Our status as a Christian denomination and our loyalty to Jesus as Lord needs to be clarified since it is well known that there are UCC pastors and churches that do not adhere to the Lordship and divinity of Jesus, so much so in fact that the UCC is often referred to as “Unitarians Considering Christ.”

Obviously there is considerable debate even in strongly Christocentric and theologically conservative denominations, but unlike in WCC member denoms those debates are not over something as central as the Deity of Christ.

Please understand MT, the first Christian denomination I ever belonged to after my conversion was a mainline Presbyterian denomination. The pastor frequently denied the fundamentals of the faith from the pulpit, including the deity of Christ, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and frequently referred to God as our "Mother." I left that denomination after a few months, because even as a new Christian, I recognized that that wasn't the teaching of Scripture or the historic Christian faith.

- SEAGOON

[GtoRA2]

Suprise suprise suprise, nash didnt reply.

[StarOfAfrica2]

I'm a little confused here, I need some clarification.  I'm just seeing some quotes, and I'm not sure of the context in some cases.


Are you saying that some of the UCC considers Christ to be Lord, as in they believe in the Trinity, and that all the separate parts of God are in fact God;  and that other parts disbelieve this, seeing Jesus instead as a Mohammed type figure?

Or are you saying that all of them recognize Jesus AS God, and that there are no separate entities, no Trinity?  And then the ones that dont, simply dont believe in God period?

[Seagoon]

Hi SOA,

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I'm a little confused here, I need some clarification.  I'm just seeing some quotes, and I'm not sure of the context in some cases.


Are you saying that some of the UCC considers Christ to be Lord, as in they believe in the Trinity, and that all the separate parts of God are in fact God;  and that other parts disbelieve this, seeing Jesus instead as a Mohammed type figure?

Or are you saying that all of them recognize Jesus AS God, and that there are no separate entities, no Trinity?  And then the ones that dont, simply dont believe in God period?

What is implied in the overture and the quotes is that many members and clergy in the UCC do not believe that Jesus is God -  the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity and that many concur with popular belief that he was simply an enlightened sage who said some good things. They also do not believe that saving faith in Him is absolutely necessary to salvation.

The fact that the overture was even thought necessary indicates that many UCC pastors have come to fear that their church is becoming functionally indistinguishable from the Unitarian Universalists in its faith and practice. A combing through of UCC member church websites can produce a lot of evidence that that is in fact the case.

Anyway, this is getting a little on the surreal side. Arguing that the UCC is non-doctrinal, non-fundamentalist, and theologically liberal and politically oriented (and predictably in a liberal direction) is rather like arguing whether the sky is blue. No one in their right mind would argue that they were conservative, inerrantist, or fundamentalist.

I mean here is a list of the resolutions before the latest Synod:

"1. Another World is Possible: A Peace With Justice Movement in the United Church of Christ

2. Calling on the United Church of Christ to Declare Itself to Be a "Fair Trade" Denomination

3. Calling for a Study of Divestment of Church Funds from Companies that Profit from the Perpetuation of Violence and Injustice in Israel and Palestine

4. Establishing Representative and Senatorial Synods

5. For the Common Good

6. For the International Criminal Court

7. In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All

8. In Support of Fair and Just Compensation for Lay Employees of the United Church of Christ

9. In Support of Ministries to our Campuses of Higher Education

10. Marriage Equality

11. Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman

12. Promoting Peace for All in the Sudan

13. Religious Freedom for Native Hawaiian Prisoners

14. Saving Social Security from Privatization

15. Selective Divestment from Companies Involved with Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Building of the "Security Fence," and the Israeli Settlements Within the Palestinian Territory

16. Tear Down the Wall

17. The United Church of Christ Is a Christian Church

18. The Cross Triumphant as the Symbol of the United Church of Christ"


Most of them are political rather than ecclesiastical, and sound like the talking points from the next MOVEON.ORG conference. How on earth, for instance, is "Saving Social Security from Privitization" the work of the courts of the church? And when you have a serious debate over 17 going on in your church, the fat lady (oops I'm sorry, "full figured woman") is definitely singing.

- SEAGOON