Thanks for the post! I guess one part of the reason why those from the left may find your suggestion a difficult transition would be the word righteousness and the connotations that go with it...
Steve Chatelier
· 4 years ago
Thanks for the post! I guess one part of the reason why those from the left may find your suggestion a difficult transition would be the word righteousness and the connotations that go with it...
CJ
· 4 years ago
Mark said in his post that he's using the word righteousness synonymously with justice (as in the Greek they are the same word).
CJ
· 4 years ago
Mark said in his post that he's using the word righteousness synonymously with justice (as in the Greek they are the same word).
Steve Chatelier
· 4 years ago
Yeah - I understand that justice\justification and righteousness derive from the same root words in NT Greek and OT Hebrew.
Mark probably already covered it, so sorry! Just to make explicit my point, though, what I was trying to say was that many on the left see that "righteousness" carries the connotations of piety which gives way to judgment\condemnation etc.
I am not saying this is right, but that to some extent is probably a reality. Therefore, there needs to be a renewed understanding of righteousness as justice...
Steve Chatelier
· 4 years ago
Yeah - I understand that justicejustification and righteousness derive from the same root words in NT Greek and OT Hebrew.
Mark probably already covered it, so sorry! Just to make explicit my point, though, what I was trying to say was that many on the left see that "righteousness" carries the connotations of piety which gives way to judgmentcondemnation etc.
I am not saying this is right, but that to some extent is probably a reality. Therefore, there needs to be a renewed understanding of righteousness as justice...
Chris
· 4 years ago
I think I know what you're trying to say, Steve, but I think you underestimate our power to change meaning in our own language. You are advocating that justice swallow up the definition of righteousness altogether, but I think it would be just as easy to define righteousness apart from its bad connotations (like self-righteousness)
Chris
· 4 years ago
I think I know what you're trying to say, Steve, but I think you underestimate our power to change meaning in our own language. You are advocating that justice swallow up the definition of righteousness altogether, but I think it would be just as easy to define righteousness apart from its bad connotations (like self-righteousness)
Steve Chatelier
· 4 years ago
Interesting Chris - I was not advocating that justice swallow up the definition of righteousness altogether...but since you mention it, it seems fascinating! While it may not be the answer, it is an interesting concept to ponder!!
Steve Chatelier
· 4 years ago
Interesting Chris - I was not advocating that justice swallow up the definition of righteousness altogether...but since you mention it, it seems fascinating! While it may not be the answer, it is an interesting concept to ponder!!
Van S
· 4 years ago
Todd--I guess instead of "ecclesial goals" it would be better to say "the mission and aims of the Church." I know that the Kingdom of God and the missio Dei aren't limited to the Church, but it is highly problematic for the Church to use the State as a tool for the furtherance of the evangel.
Van S
· 4 years ago
Todd--I guess instead of "ecclesial goals" it would be better to say "the mission and aims of the Church." I know that the Kingdom of God and the missio Dei aren't limited to the Church, but it is highly problematic for the Church to use the State as a tool for the furtherance of the evangel.
Dave
· 4 years ago
I believe in social justice in the sense that nobody, no group, color, sex or sect, should be oppressed by 'the system'. I don't believe that just because someone is poor they are oppressed. Looking at it from a constitutional point of view, I think that is the intent behind "We have the right to pursue happiness." No one group of people, unless their pursuit of happiness victimizes another group, should be prevented from pursing happiness. Note, it doesn't say we have the right to be happy, just to pursue it. So the government is there to keep the things that inhibit our ability to pursue happiness in check.
One of the problems I have with the leftie view (religious and otherwise) of social justice is that they seek to make people happy. And they think everyone should pay for it. They aren't concerned with their development or spiritual well being, just that they are happy now. I say this because I married into a Methodist family who thinks high of volunteering at the soup kitchen around Christmas time but makes no mention of saving grace.
I guess my point is the governments responsibility is to watch over our freedom, and we as Christians have the right, and responsibility, to reach into our own pockets, take time out of our schedules, and bring about change.
Dave
· 4 years ago
I believe in social justice in the sense that nobody, no group, color, sex or sect, should be oppressed by 'the system'. I don't believe that just because someone is poor they are oppressed. Looking at it from a constitutional point of view, I think that is the intent behind "We have the right to pursue happiness." No one group of people, unless their pursuit of happiness victimizes another group, should be prevented from pursing happiness. Note, it doesn't say we have the right to be happy, just to pursue it. So the government is there to keep the things that inhibit our ability to pursue happiness in check.
One of the problems I have with the leftie view (religious and otherwise) of social justice is that they seek to make people happy. And they think everyone should pay for it. They aren't concerned with their development or spiritual well being, just that they are happy now. I say this because I married into a Methodist family who thinks high of volunteering at the soup kitchen around Christmas time but makes no mention of saving grace.
I guess my point is the governments responsibility is to watch over our freedom, and we as Christians have the right, and responsibility, to reach into our own pockets, take time out of our schedules, and bring about change.
Jeff
· 4 years ago
First, I think the religious right probably wouldn't have much problem with the comment about using the government to reach the lost. I think that is the agenda behind the "moral majority." The idea that good morals makes good people and good people will like Jesus. Second, I agree with anabaptists ideologically, but practically, I just think that there are certain systemic injustices that can only be changed through the system or reforming it. Yes, individual Christians should care for the poor, etc., but Christians should also be concerned about how their government treats their friends and neighbors. I don't think it's a matter of either/or, but both/and.
Jeff
· 4 years ago
First, I think the religious right probably wouldn't have much problem with the comment about using the government to reach the lost. I think that is the agenda behind the "moral majority." The idea that good morals makes good people and good people will like Jesus. Second, I agree with anabaptists ideologically, but practically, I just think that there are certain systemic injustices that can only be changed through the system or reforming it. Yes, individual Christians should care for the poor, etc., but Christians should also be concerned about how their government treats their friends and neighbors. I don't think it's a matter of either/or, but both/and.
graham
· 4 years ago
Jeff, I don't think that anabaptists would necessarilly disagree with that. How it's done, might be debateable though.
graham
· 4 years ago
Jeff, I don't think that anabaptists would necessarilly disagree with that. How it's done, might be debateable though.
Joel Parsons
· 4 years ago
Part of the problem is that the Church utilizes the American government to achieve ecclesial goals.
Amen brother!
And it doesn't just relate to the American government, to pretty much every government in a country with a significant Christian presence.
It is the role of Christians to display charity, to share their faith, to demonstrate love, not the role of government. It is an abdication of the Christian's call to simply think we can satisfy our call by getting government to do these things for us.
Joel Parsons
· 4 years ago
Part of the problem is that the Church utilizes the American government to achieve ecclesial goals.
Amen brother!
And it doesn't just relate to the American government, to pretty much every government in a country with a significant Christian presence.
It is the role of Christians to display charity, to share their faith, to demonstrate love, not the role of government. It is an abdication of the Christian's call to simply think we can satisfy our call by getting government to do these things for us.
Jeremy
· 4 years ago
Mark-
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
Jeremy
· 4 years ago
Mark-
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
Jeremy
· 4 years ago
Mark-
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
Jeremy
· 4 years ago
Mark-
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
Van S
· 4 years ago
I'm not for complete extraction from any and all utilization of the Government for Christian aims. I just want us to tease out a theologically reflective approach. I don't reject all uses of the government, but while many on both "sides" are calling for a greater involvement in politics, I think we should be less involved--but at the same time we should be active in more direct ways--like directly relating to the poor and caring for the homeless directly as much as possible as a church, rather than relying upon government to further these goals. I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that reliance.
Van S
· 4 years ago
I'm not for complete extraction from any and all utilization of the Government for Christian aims. I just want us to tease out a theologically reflective approach. I don't reject all uses of the government, but while many on both "sides" are calling for a greater involvement in politics, I think we should be less involved--but at the same time we should be active in more direct ways--like directly relating to the poor and caring for the homeless directly as much as possible as a church, rather than relying upon government to further these goals. I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that reliance.
All Comments
I guess one part of the reason why those from the left may find your suggestion a difficult transition would be the word righteousness and the connotations that go with it...
I guess one part of the reason why those from the left may find your suggestion a difficult transition would be the word righteousness and the connotations that go with it...
Mark probably already covered it, so sorry! Just to make explicit my point, though, what I was trying to say was that many on the left see that "righteousness" carries the connotations of piety which gives way to judgment\condemnation etc.
I am not saying this is right, but that to some extent is probably a reality. Therefore, there needs to be a renewed understanding of righteousness as justice...
Mark probably already covered it, so sorry! Just to make explicit my point, though, what I was trying to say was that many on the left see that "righteousness" carries the connotations of piety which gives way to judgmentcondemnation etc.
I am not saying this is right, but that to some extent is probably a reality. Therefore, there needs to be a renewed understanding of righteousness as justice...
constitutional point of view, I think that is the intent behind "We have the right to pursue happiness." No one group of people, unless their pursuit of
happiness victimizes another group, should be prevented from pursing happiness. Note, it doesn't say we have the right to be happy, just to pursue it. So the government is there to keep the things that inhibit our
ability to pursue happiness in check.
One of the problems I have with the leftie view (religious and otherwise) of social justice is that they seek to make people happy. And they think everyone should pay for it. They aren't concerned with their development or spiritual well being, just that they are happy now. I say this because I married into a Methodist family who thinks high of volunteering at the soup kitchen around Christmas time but makes no mention of saving grace.
I guess my point is the governments responsibility is to watch over our freedom, and we as Christians have the right, and responsibility, to reach into our own pockets, take time out of our schedules, and bring about
change.
constitutional point of view, I think that is the intent behind "We have the right to pursue happiness." No one group of people, unless their pursuit of
happiness victimizes another group, should be prevented from pursing happiness. Note, it doesn't say we have the right to be happy, just to pursue it. So the government is there to keep the things that inhibit our
ability to pursue happiness in check.
One of the problems I have with the leftie view (religious and otherwise) of social justice is that they seek to make people happy. And they think everyone should pay for it. They aren't concerned with their development or spiritual well being, just that they are happy now. I say this because I married into a Methodist family who thinks high of volunteering at the soup kitchen around Christmas time but makes no mention of saving grace.
I guess my point is the governments responsibility is to watch over our freedom, and we as Christians have the right, and responsibility, to reach into our own pockets, take time out of our schedules, and bring about
change.
Second, I agree with anabaptists ideologically, but practically, I just think that there are certain systemic injustices that can only be changed through the system or reforming it. Yes, individual Christians should care for the poor, etc., but Christians should also be concerned about how their government treats their friends and neighbors. I don't think it's a matter of either/or, but both/and.
Second, I agree with anabaptists ideologically, but practically, I just think that there are certain systemic injustices that can only be changed through the system or reforming it. Yes, individual Christians should care for the poor, etc., but Christians should also be concerned about how their government treats their friends and neighbors. I don't think it's a matter of either/or, but both/and.
Amen brother!
And it doesn't just relate to the American government, to pretty much every government in a country with a significant Christian presence.
It is the role of Christians to display charity, to share their faith, to demonstrate love, not the role of government. It is an abdication of the Christian's call to simply think we can satisfy our call by getting government to do these things for us.
Amen brother!
And it doesn't just relate to the American government, to pretty much every government in a country with a significant Christian presence.
It is the role of Christians to display charity, to share their faith, to demonstrate love, not the role of government. It is an abdication of the Christian's call to simply think we can satisfy our call by getting government to do these things for us.
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).
I've had this fight with Chris before on his blog. The problem with the thinking here is that its so black-and-white.
Though I agree with your Haurwasian perspective for the most part, I don't see what's wrong with the church utilizing the gov't as one means of accomplishing its calling. Wallis and others who are calling for this aren't arguing for an exclusively governmental approach to our ecclesial "goals."
To address your example, yeah, I think it is ok to utilize the gov't in some limited ways to achieve the "conservative" goals as well. I don't want state-run evangelism campaigns, but I have no problem registering my church as a 501c3 (Is Missio Dei a 501c3?), nor would I refuse monies from some sort of faith-based govt program (if there were no unethical strings attached).