These are answers to a comment on the last post. I'm happy to have the opportunity to clarify my points.
Q: If Isaiah is to the community of God to clean house in the community of God, then what application does that have for a secular government? It has tons for the Church within the Church, but where do you see God telling Israel to clean someone else's "house."
A: Since when is America someone else's house? That sounds a little bit like the excuse given in Proverbs 24:11-12:
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person according to what he has done?
In other words, God is not fooled. If we knew about it but did nothing, God knows. I don't think He's going to want to hear, "Well, it was someone else's house."
This is not a crusade for sanctification via legislation. (Don't get sucked into media spin... or even Steve Camp's spin, where he talks of a so-called attempt to "moralize our land.") This is caring about the welfare of our communities and caring that justice is done. Translated: People are being abused by those in power. God cares about it, and we should, too.
As far as the issue of secular government verses Israel, here's a thought: The book of Isaiah, as well as the other OT prophets, tell us how God views injustice in a nation. I have no reason to believe God’s character has changed in that respect.
Do we suppose God will give America, or any other nation, a pass because they have disclaimed association with Him? Wasn't Nineveh in line for judgment? Snubbing their noses at God never got Israel off the hook. In reality, Israel was frequently not any more faithful to God than contemporary America.
Q: I'm not sure why you think consistency in the doctrine of sovereignty means we don't do anything?
A: I don't. But I do think consistency to Steve Camp's argument means we don't do anything.
I believe God is sovereign. But I don't claim to know His sovereign will -- none of us do. Steve Camp says the Supreme Court does what God wants, but for that matter, so does Dobson. Where does that get us? It doesn't tell us anything about whether the political activism in question is right or wrong.
Q: That sounds more like fatalism than Biblical sovereignty where we are commanded to obey and love God by doing (but we are not commanded to alter the history as God has decided it).
A: I agree. How is Steve Camp's argument not fatalism? If I understand him right, he basically says, vote, write letters, participate a little, and then pray. God will take care of the rest, and we can be happy with that.
Well, there is more you can do. Dobson and others do more. I do more. Would anyone dare make a parallel argument regarding Christian missions? "We have lots of missionaries. No need to do any more. Now it's up to God. His will will be sovereignly done anyway."
As for altering history as God has decided it, if God has decided it, then we can't alter it, can we? If we influence a change, then I guess God wanted a change to be made. The thing is, often times faithful people are the means God uses to work in this world. The fact that God is ultimately in charge is no justification for inactivity.
Q: These two work together, not against each other, but once again, this is in-house. I don't judge an unbelieving homosexual, but one who claimed to be a Christian I would, so that is the difference.
A: Yes, I agree with you. But the issue being discussed relates to civil judges. It's their job before God, and the public, to judge. They aren't supposed to let any kind of criminal off the hook, Christian or otherwise. So this particular discussion isn't "in house," in my mind.
Remember what Justice Sunday was about: getting judges that follow the law. That's not radical. That's not disrespectful of anybody. That's not a cause Christians need to be ashamed of. And that's not an exclusively Christian cause. (In fact, part of Steve Camp's concern is that it's not only Christians that are backing this.)
Q: Let me ask you this. How does the Biblical distinctions between the kingdom(s) of the world and the Kingdom of God fit into this?
A: I don't know that it does. If anything, it's a distinction between different realms of God's creative order.
The government is one of God's institution, like the church and the family. The Bible calls the ruling magistrates "ministers." Their realm of responsibility is civil and criminal law. They can be negligent in that responsibility as much as any of us can be negligent in any of our responsibilities. A father can be a blessing to his family, or he can be a curse. A pastor can faithfully relay what God has said, or he can deceive. Why should we think it doesn't please God for Christians to be wholeheartedly involved in all three of these institutions? (Let's see, what men of God were ministers in government service? David, Joseph, Daniel, Moses, Joshua, Solomon...)
In my post tomorrow, I will list a number of Bible passages that have led me to the conclusion that justice is really important in God's economy. A lot of it is from the Old Testament. But remember, the OT was "the Bible" of the early church. We can learn a lot from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment