Looking for Jesus: Refuges in Faith
An interesting article in the age today with some familiar names quoted and mentioned: Credo Cafe, Cheryl Lawrie, Mark Sayers, Ruth Powell, Alan Hirsch, Don Carson and others.
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
April 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
What is important to look at when examining Wilberforce, Thornton and the rest who came into Parliament because of the great awakening was how long they persisted until they were able to change the laws.
They also had a lot to do with the quite radical change to education.
God uses both christians and pagans alike to do his work.Few christians who go into politics stay close to their beliefs. They compromise because of ambition.
God foretold the Israelites would want to be like their neighbours and have as King and they ended up with a large tax burden and excessive regulations as also was foretold.
The Monarchy was just like the Nation of Israel always doomed to fail.
I see Rev still hasn’t understood the Sermon on the mount yet.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Janet, I do not wish to demean in anyway the good these people did, nor the sacrifices they made to do it. However I prefer the examples of Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Dorothy Day and Dave Andrews.
Power by its very nature needs to be defended. Especially if you are using power for good, you have to defend your power, because if you lose it good will not happen and bad might happen. Power therefore draws us inevitably into violence of some form. When we take the alternate route of nonviolence, and refuse power we bring about spiritual authority. You cannot fight someone who refuses to fight, therefore you must be confronted with the spirituality of their position as they are willing to die for it. You take away the weapons by submitting to them.
We have tried to use power to deal with the abortion issue, it has resulted in division, ugliness and even in the end violence. But in my way of action we work like yeast. Rather than taking power and changing the laws, we change the people. By our love, and non violence, and community people are changed. Then regardless of what the law is, abortion does not happen because the kingdom values have infiltrated society.
Janet, I know that most people in the world do not agree with me, and that it does not seem pragmatic. However, if you begin to read the gospels keeping these concepts in the back of your mind you will begin to see how often Jesus refuses to be a part of this system of power. One of the problems with the over emphasis of substitutionary atonement is we limit Jesus death to this issue and do not see His dealing with power. Jesus stood lovingly, nonviolently against the kingdoms of this world. And lived completely the kingdom of GOd’s ethic. The world and its systems both religious and secular would not stand for it and poured out their wrath upon him, and He responded with love, and grace and non violence. He even said, I have more power at my disposal than you do, but I refuse to access it. We must never forget that Jesus death shows us the way of non violence, and the refusal of power, just as we must also not forget how desperately we need forgivness. It isn’t either or it is both.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
ofcourse I haven’t Homer, I am too busy actually believing Jesus meant what he said.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Rev, I highlighted 1 Sam 8:8 for a reason.
Israel’s experience wasn’t just preparatory but in a sense paradigmatic and prophetic as well.
We are probably closer in interpretation than you think however, I would suggest the dynamics are a little more complex. Perhaps we would agree there too if we weren’t limited to short comments on a blog.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
But he did not say that Rev.
pity
April 14th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
he did not say what in particular homer?
did he not say this:
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
‘Before Christ an eye for an eye was good enough’
This is the rubbish I was talking about.
Jesus wasn’t talking making the eye for eye irrelevant but ensuring people understood some well worn traditional practices were.
An eye for an eye is about punishment fitting the crime or in other words making the punishment proportionate to the crime.
It is what Christians should be rabbiting on about when talking about justice
April 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Rev, some hurried thoughts.
I think I know where you are heading (and I certainly wouldn’t be looking to Ghandi to interpret Scripture) but I think this is where ultra pacificism and non-violence falls down.
Loving includes doing good and shunning evil.
Doing unto others as we would have them do unto us is not just doing good to them but also preventing them from doing evil.
Turning the other cheek is not to retaliate with vengeance - that belongs to God because He always punishes evil - but it also does not mean throwing justice (and 3/4 of the Bible) out of the window. Yes we can carry the Roman’s cloak an extra mile, but I don’t see anywhere were we were called to line up so that we can be burnt in gas chambers or wave a few placards while others do it to our neighbours.
As you said, Jesus never repudiated violence. He could have called down a legion of angels if He wanted. He chose not to even though it was well within His right and ability to wipe out all of the southern Levant. But He chose not to because it was His mission to die in order to…do the ultimate good …and defeat evil.
We cannot read Jesus words alone without bringing in the import of all of Scripture. I don’t believe in red letter Bibles.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Gandhi understood Jesus in ways that most Christians do not, I believe we can trust him to interpret Jesus cause he actually lived the teachings of Jesus, and claimed that is what he was doing.
As to your other point, how do you get from my words that we do not confront injustice? We not only should confront injustice, but to willing to die to do so. When you take Jesus death, and make it only about atonement, and not also about the way we are called to respond to the powers, I think you lesson what Jesus did.
Gandhi stood agains injustice and oppression and in his nonviolence conquered the oppressors. So did he also stand against the violence between hindus and muslims, and again in his nonviolence won. So did those CHristians like Corrie Ten Boom who stood against the injustice of the nazis without guns, but refusing to submit. The world is full of these examples, and the early church was the best example. They did not resist Rome with force but with love. And I believe they were winning til they succumbed to the lure of state power, and prestige.
Homer, again you show how Christian scholarship is very good at presenting a ton of arguements to wiggle out of the things Jesus actually said.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Funny I just stumbled across this.
How do you read Mark 12 then?
April 14th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I obviously do not agree with Barth, and which bit of Mark 12 specifically?
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
rev, it is you that is wiggling and at a great pace.
It is one thing to be a martyr because you are openly and lovingly proclaiming Jesus and the salvation through him it is another thing entirely to allow a person with gun to shoot you without defending yourself!
Ghandi is one of Christ’s best proclaimers! Deary me.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Homer,
What did Jesus do? And all of the disciples? I will stay on their team, you can be on Carsons team, I wonder who wins?
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
re: the wilberforce comment, I am a huge admirer of this man and respect how he (and Tutu and others) used power for good…but it was only to undo the evil brough by power in the first place. Now, i’m not quite ready to call myslef a Chriatian anarchist
but it seems to me if white people hadn’t taken power over blacks in the first place then there wouldn’t have been a need for anyone to use power for good to fix the problem.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Emma, I am gonna call you one anyways, welcome to the club
You really should read Christianarchy by Dave Andrews, it is fantastic.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I will, cheers
April 14th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
hmm,
obviously rev does not understand english.
I thought it was pretty straightforward.
The disciples did exactly as I stated.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
So you do agree with me then? Do not resist those that are trying to abuse you for Jesus name sake? Well Homer then we actually are in full agreement. Good job, you are right about something finally, wonderful.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
No I said there is nothing wrong if you are condemned simply for living as Jesus told us to.
There is a world of difference between that and simply letting someone kill you because you have a poor understanding of bibical doctrine.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I agree a hundred percent, if you live the way Jesus told you to: refusing to use violence against others, caring for the poor and the marginalized, telling others of the kingdom of God, and living like it is the truth. Then people that don’t like what you are saying tell you to shut up and stop acting like that, and you refuse and keep doing it, and then they come and kill you, and you don’t pick up a rifle to stop it, because that is not what Jesus did. Just like the disciples did. Good job Homer, you are right!!!
rev
April 15th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Jesus never says at any stage if a person is out to kill you then all by all means let him do it.
You seem to be reading a lot into the Sermon on the Mount which isn’t there particularly with regard to the eye foe an eye which Jesus gives us three examples to let us know what he is on about. None which give any evidence for your pacifism.
Being arrested and then tried for simply being a christian or even the Colombine example of being threatened with death unless you renounce Jesus is a long long way from your position
April 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Did Jesus fight back? Did the disciples fight back? Did any of the early CHristians fight back?
I am reading nothing into it, just actually looking at Jesus example and following it, and you would rather dwell on theories, praise Carson.
rev
April 15th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I do believe Jesus came to earth to do something.
Something about dying on a cross to take the punishment for sinners.
We actually see no examples of either Jesus or the Apostles being threatened with their lives walking along the road, teaching etc.
We do see Jesus being falsely arrested, we also see some Apostles being falsely arrested but err that isn’t the point is it.
If a person attempts to kill me or my family I am quite entitled to defend myself. The Same goes for a country.
look up Just war theory.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I am supportive of your views Rev… I think they are the “normal” ways for Christians to behave.
By virture of my temperament more than anything else, I avoid the “never” or “always” words. This is in part because I believe there should always be room for the Holy Spirit to do the unusual… in part because I believe in freedom of conscience… in part because we actually DO live a fallen world where sometimes on balance force is the lesser of two evils. (eg a UN Peacekeeping force may be the lesser of two evils compared to a genocide… Rwanda comes to mind) Yes, Emma’s right… if there weren’t corrupt power structures in the first place there would be no need for anyone to attempt to exercise power for good… but corrupt power structures DO exist.
I am not called to temporal power… I have no interest in this whatsoever. But I believe some Christians have been… I’ve stated some examples in an earlier post.
I think differences we have expressed in the past over the institutional church boil down to the same issue (ie the way someone of my temperament looks at things)… I agree that “incarnational missional churches” are the most original and authentic expression of church… but we actually DO now have institutional churches and I believe some people ARE called by God to work in them.
Anyway, in my mind most Christians most of the time are called to walk in the ways you describe… but I’m open to the idea that some Christians some of the time are called to exercise temporal power and somehow prayerfully deal with all of the troubling issues that come with it… whether this be in business, in politics, in education, in healthcare, in the legal system, or even in institutional churches.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
So Homer, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If you get arrested for your faith, and executed you should not fight back, but accept they death. If people in your church are being killed for their faith, you should not fight back, and kill the killers, but be martyrs. But if someone might sometime in the future attack your country, you can kill them.
Is that correct? Or do they have to start the attack first?
Janet, I know what I am saying is hard, and I am still trying to live it out. And I understand that people will struggle and sometimes do what they feel is the lesser of two evils. Bonhoeffer is an example of someone so conflicted, I just believe that if we truly want to follow the example of Jesus, it is to love our enemies, even as they kill us.
rev
April 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
the Bonhoeffer example is extremely hard, but I think maybe God saved him from actually killing HItler, I mean it’s hard to be that crap at assasinating someone.
and yes, as Janet says corrupt regimnes do exist, and where they do they need to be met with people like Wilberforce who use power for good purposes. I think it’s possible to hold the powerless system as an ideal, while accepting it is not so, and supporting and encouraging Wilberforce-types to change it.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
That’s about where I sit on the issue at the moment Emma. But my comments about force (eg a peacekeeping force to stop a genocide) I say in an abstract sense… I actually think I could never personally hurt anyone… I’m a moderate by temperament and a pacifist by instinct. Not a cage fighter pacifist like the Rev… more like a wimpy girl sort of pacifist.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Hi All,
Emma and Janet, I enjoy your posts and admire you both for you passion w.r.t to social justice and your Christian walk!!
Keep the watch!
DB
April 16th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Thank you Dogbreath… but I have to say it’s admiration far better directed to those working overseas among the desperately poor, or working with the diasabled or mentally ill (”the least of these”) than to someone like myself who works in a nice office, studies at a nice theological college, attends a nice local church and lives in a middle class house in the ‘burbs! Seasons of life…
April 16th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Emma
A small point but Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in the plot against Hitler - he knew about the plot and talked to the group about whether it was justified but he probably wasn’t involved as much as the people who actually carried it out . Also the attempt only failed because someone moved a suitcase - it was a well planned attempt