In Romans 12 Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to this world, but to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good, acceptable and perfect.” In this simple statement Paul reminds us that the world is constantly trying to push us into its mold. As a result we will be conformed to this world unless our minds are renewed. But more than this, it is only when our minds have been transformed that we will be able to see the will of God for what it is; good, acceptable and perfect.
Unfortunately, Christians have not heeded Paul’s warning and exhortation. Instead, contemporary Christianity seems to be fitting very comfortably into the world’s mold. As a result, modern Christians tend to think just like the rest of the culture, and those with Biblical worldviews are rare. There are, no doubt, many reasons for this. But I think part of the problem has to do with our neglect of the Old Testament.
Most evangelical Christians are well informed when it comes to the basic doctrines of the New Testament. This is because they have spent considerable time in the Gospels and the Epistles, particularly the epistles of Paul. But they do not have a well formed philosophy of history, for example, because they have neglected the historical narratives of the Old Testament.
From the Law the believer comes to understand God’s unchanging standards of right and wrong. From the Law the believer learns that his neighbor has a right to be secure in his person, and to enjoy the fruits of his labor. From the Law the believer learns that he has a right to his wages, but not a right to wealth he did not labor to create. In fact, the Law teaches him that it is a sin even to covet property which belongs to another.
Failing to understand God’s standards of right and wrong is dangerous. Failing to understand God’s standard can result in the believer affirming things that God has condemned, so that he is calling good evil and evil good. Failing to understand God’s standard can result in a believer’s being drawn into sin that will destroy his life. Failing to understand God’s standard can result in the embracing of world views and philosophies that are contrary to the righteousness of God.
From the historical narratives the believer has an opportunity to observed thousands of years of human history from a divine perspective. From these narratives the believer comes to realize that history is about a battle between good and evil that has raged almost from the beginning. From these narratives the believer comes to realize that history moves in a predictable pattern; that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people; and that “the wicked will return to Sheol, even all the nations who forget God.”
Lacking a Biblically based philosophy of history is dangerous. It leaves the believer vulnerable to false views of human history . It leaves the believer unable to understand his own times or the politics of the day because of his ignorance of the unchanging God’s dealing with previous generations. In short, it leaves the believer open to deception and worldly philosophies that sound new, but are really ancient lies that have killed before and will kill again. Unfortunately, many Christians, lacking a Biblical world view, are embracing them.
This is impressive. I have to ask, being very new to the study of the old testament (outside of prophecy) would the ideology I have formed that could be called “Anarchist Christian” be wrong by the standards of God? This ideology of mine stems from Christ’s call to help others and that Christians should care for one another and treat all men like brothers. In anarchism, or atleast a part of it, I found that Christians and our own theology and moral code could fit in quite nicely with my own understanding of the Bible and God’s Word. The whole theory being that the community works to support itself and others when the need arises. The governing of these communities would be democratic consensus between the whole community as per the eqaulity of the Bible and Jesus’s teaching. Does this sound at all against what the Lord hath laid down in the name of a Christian World View?
By: Nicholas on November 17, 2009
at 9:18 pm
Christian communalism has been tried with some scattered success down through the ages. I have no problem with such volutary acommunities. However, when we make participation manditory I believe we move beyond scripture. The histories of those sorts of communities are always tragic. As to anarchism, I may not know what you mean by the term, but here’s one from Merriam-Webster:
I may not know what you mean by anarchy, but based on the above definition I would have to say that anarchy is not a Christian option. I note that even in the early church’s experiment with communalism there were clearly recognized leaders and an authority structure. This pattern continued as the church spread and developed. Also, Paul wrote that in the church things are to be done decently and in order. This would seem to preclude any absense of order.
By: markcarlton on November 17, 2009
at 9:36 pm
Anarchism as I have studied it is not related to anarchy, a situation, while anarchism is a school of thought. I suppose it would be Christian Communalism, and that was what I was really getting at I think. I believe that Paul was 100% right in his advocation of order and an authoritary structure. No society can be run without one afterall. I believe that it must be voluntary, if it were not that would be far from the the Christian way and a grave insult to the Lord! It is very true that such histories be tragic, since they are trampling on the free will of others. I would never advocate a church community (or any community for that matter) without order.
By: Nicholas on November 17, 2009
at 9:52 pm
Anarchism is the school of though he would be referencing. Though for a quick read to gather the basics all I can suggest is wikipedia: anarchism. Or for a good book “In the defense of anarchism” by: Robert Paul Wolff
By: Matthew on November 18, 2009
at 3:41 am
With a quick examination of your political ideologies on the “Why good men become Marxist” I must ask the question of type of rule. Would not the Bibilical Standard of Government support a monarchy instead of a full fledged democracy? Or at the very least a form of democartic monarchy, or something in which there is a leader who posses the authority to actually acomplish something much in the way a king would,and not held back by the massive red tape beaurocraies of our present governments?
By: Nicholas on November 18, 2009
at 5:17 pm
Your are right, Monarchy was the form of government that eventually emerged in Biblical Israel (initially there were judges, tribal governments, village leaders, etc). However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it was the first constitutional democracy in history, since the king himself was under the law (Deut. 17:14-20). I might mention for Matthew’s benefit that one of the things he was not allowed to do was to seize the means of production (the land).
I do note, however, that there was some democracy (or we could say, proto-democracy), but it was primarily at the local or tribal level (seen in such things as the selecting village elders, and tribal leaders). Also, having just read II Chronicles, there was a great deal of public participation in David’s government.
You are right also in saying that even though constrained (at least in theory) by the law, the king id have the ability to exercise authority and to carry out his program. Again, referring to II Chronicles, David did create a very well organized bureaucracy to administer his program’s. Alas, it would seem that apparatchiks are necessary evils in any government.
P.S. Thanks for clearing up what you meant by anarchism. Again, I have no problem with voluntary communalism. I do have a problem when government requires it.
P.S.S. I think I should also point out that human government is ordained by God (Romans 13:1). A Biblical world view recognizes this, and also understands its mandate, which was also given by God in “the eternal covenant.” (c.f. Genesis 9:1-13; Romans 13:4-6). This mandate is primarily concerned with justice; specifically, rewarding good behavior and avenging evil, particularly the evil of shedding innocent blood. You mention that your are familiar with certain O.T. prophetic passages. This, then, might interest you; part of the reason for the coming judgment of God will be humanity’s violation of the eternal covenant (Isaiah 24:5).
By: markcarlton on November 18, 2009
at 8:36 pm
Aha, thank you kindly. That clears a lot up. I find it very interesting that the only thing to bring down the ancient Israelis was their continuos breaking of the law. I suppose it is a reason why our own governments are not as godly as we would like them to be. They have broken the laws with many of their actions.
That brings me to another question. The seperation of church and state. Is it wrong for us to have shunned the influence of God’s Church from our nations governing polocies? I have long seen it as wrong not to have some kind of spiritual adviser to our nations leaders, to council them on Gods way, especially in “Christian” nations like the United States.
By: Nicholas on November 18, 2009
at 10:02 pm
Mark: For your benefit I would also like to point out that since I am a Libertarian socialist I don’t advance giving the government powers to take away land. Voluntary communalism is what my brand of socialism is, thereby the people regulate the means of production. The only real type of authority if you will would be a general council of removable delegates.
By: Matthew on November 18, 2009
at 11:11 pm
Nicholas, the idea of the separation of church and state originated among the Anabaptist’s. It was an application of Jesus statement: Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. I agree with this application. I do not think God intended the church to get its hands on the levers of power. Here’s my view: I think God ordained and established three institutions for the well being, of human society (four if you count Israel), the home, human government, and the church. Each of these institutions have a God-given mandate. Working together they are like a three legged stool and provide stability to a society. If one is in trouble so also is the entire society, because the other two “legs cannot make up for the weakness of the other. Though, of course, the person sitting on the stool will try to balance on the other two. This, in turn puts pressures on the other two legs and they begin to fail. When all three institutions are in trouble collapse is immanent (see western civilization. The three institutions, functioning as intended, compliment each other. As to church and state: The role of the church is not to be the will, or the ruler of society (or to build a kingdom), but to act as its conscience.
I have much more to say on this subject but my apologetics class is just minutes away and I must get to school. Later.
By: markcarlton on November 19, 2009
at 2:03 pm
To continue my thought, the monastic impulse (which you and Matthew share) generally shows up when the stool is completely ready to collapse. It is generally a reaction against the sorry state of the church, the very sorts of things you mention “[churches] have become very secluded little communities more prone to gossip and ostracizing those they see as “unfit” for the Lord’s house, if you can even call some of those buildings places of worship anymore. I sadly know of far to many people who attend it only as a social function instead of a place of worship.” And while I think communalism has a certain appeal to faithful Christians like you, who mourn the state of the contemporary church, I think there are some drawbacks to it. Nevertheless, God has used such movements, particularly during the last dark age. Ironic, isn’t it, that monasticism may be making a comeback of sort as the west teeters on the cusp of a new dark age.
Matthew, again, I don’t have a problem with voluntary associates such as the one you outline. However, such experiments have been tried in the past. Long term, most have not fared well. It’s the human factor that keeps messing things up.
We actually had such a commune just outside of the town in which I pastored my first church 34 years ago, it was called, Mercy Farm. The communal bakery provide restaurants in Northern Colorado with the some of the best homemade pies I’ve ever eaten. The produce produced on the farm was also first rate, as was the pottery.
They did well for several years. They even sent out a few missionaries.
But false teaching crept in, and certain teachers rose to prominence. Before long it had become a little cult centered around a charismatic leader. There were rumors of all sorts of things; they were hardly a light in the darkness. Instead, there was some fear of them in the local community.
Eventually the commune broke up and their property was purchased by the Denver Rescue Mission. They still use it today as part of their program for helping men and women overcome addictions and reintegrate into society.
By: markcarlton on November 19, 2009
at 3:53 pm
Mark,
Just wanted to chime in with a thought regarding the “three legged stool” analogy, and in a more general way about having a Biblical Worldview. Hopefully I’ll keep things coherent.
Currently at our church, we have been watching and discussing world view principles presented by Dr. Del Tackett of the Truth Project. Tackett presents a similar case that, without a God-centered perspective one is very much at risk of being deceived about God,His truths, and His overall plan for humanity.
Getting back to the “three-legged stool” analogy however; a few weeks ago, Tackett had a section where he identifies the 3 spheres of society as: family, the state (government) and the Church. Without rehashing what you’ve already stated, Tackett goes on to say that once God is taken out of the picture, the state will then begin to assume “sovereignty” if you will, in or over the other two spheres; taking on roles of responsibility that the state was not intended by the Lord to govern.
Cutting to the chase…
Whenever the church forgets it’s role and seeks to be more or other than what God has called it to do, that overstepping of God’s command to spread the good news invites the state in to assume the church’s responsibility of being salt and light to the world. This is not to insinuate that the church can’t or shouldn’t be involved in charitable activities, outreach ministries etc,; the point is that if those things become the focus, the real message can become lost, as it is relegated to a secondary concern if at all. Biblical balance is the thought here, being in the world – not of the world, shrewd and, discerning in all matters.
If one is to have an accurate Biblical world view they have to start with Jesus and Jesus alone. Jesus+my own ideas/philosophy, Jesus+my keeping of the law, Jesus+my political correctness, Jesus+my selctive text(s) from the Bible or Jesus+my good works, won’t do it. Jesus+” ” = jesus, which is not the Jesus of the Bible, the entire Bible I might add.
As I say regularly to the classes I facilitate at church however, don’t take my word for it, open your Bible and see for yourselves what God has said.
Grace and peace be with you.
By: Christopher on November 19, 2009
at 7:42 pm
I completely agree with Tackett. That’s why I quoted Psalm 9:17. Once God is forgotten the legs of the stole begin to wobble. The state then steps in to try to stabilize the teetering culture. But in the end the state cannot do what God ordained the family and the church to do, and so the nation that forgets God returns to Sheol.
By: markcarlton on November 19, 2009
at 8:50 pm
Matthew,
“Libertarian socialist” is an oxymoron. You either don’t understand libertarian or you don’t understand socialist. Libertarians are non-conformists that want to do their thing, no matter who gets hurt. Socialists want the government to inforce conformity with a utopian view that no one will get hurt.
By: Arlo on November 19, 2009
at 11:45 pm
Arlo:
Im afraid that you need to do some reading before I can even respond to that statement.
Look up the theory of Libertarian socialism. Then maybe we can have a discussion on its priciples. While your at it look up socialism too.
By: Matthew on November 19, 2009
at 11:55 pm
Matthew, you make me laugh. Arlo has forgotten more about being a libertarian than you know due to the fact that he has probably been one for more years than you have been alive. He was cutting his teeth on Ayn Rand while you were cutting your teeth. This is your biggest gaff since you opined on the shelf life of chemical and biological weapons, only to discover that Bill Stokes is a chemist. What you are is an anarchist. You and others who share your view have latched onto the title libertarian because it sounds less radical.
By: markcarlton on November 20, 2009
at 12:49 am
All
1 I think It is essential for me to read up a bit,especially about what has been elegantly referred to as postmodern Christianity.Trying to do that,but the amount workload in this season when most insurance policies fall due for renewal,is distracting.
2 I take it that this post follows in a straight line from the 4 part (continuing?) ‘God on government and economics’.I assume that the central underlying theme is that God should/must have a part in all aspects of human intercourse.The danger of an ‘ungodly’ viewpoint are stressed.After more study,I should be able to definitively comment.
3 In the meantime,and as a preliminary comment,please consider the following.
In the desert the Israelites were fed manna.God instructed them to take only so much manna as they and their households needed for the day. Greedy folks who tried to store up manna found the next morning that the excess they kept for later consumption was rotten and inedible.
Now that sounds very much like like God instituting a ‘communistic’ principle,or doesn’t it? You remember- from each according to his ability,to each according to his need.
Please let me have your take on this.
Tunji
By: tunji on November 20, 2009
at 1:06 pm
Hi Tunji, just a little clarification:
1. Postmodernism is a secular philosophy, really a world view. It has effected Christianity and all disciplines for that matter, but it starts with the arbitrary presupposition that there is no God. So while there are those who call themselves, postmodern Christians the term is really an oxymoron. Kind of like libertarian socialism. I know this tweak Matthew, because libertarian socialism is part of our modern political lexicon. But when the definitions of the two terms are looked up separately there is a clear contradiction between the two concepts. I would suggest they can only be linked in a a postmodern culture in which rational thought itself is viewed as a Western social construct.
2. The post on worldview is related to the series of posts on God and government, but it is really a fresh subject. You are correct in understanding my basic point with one slight modification. I am not just saying that God must have a part in all aspects of public intercourse, but that the word of God must become the lens through which the Christian views the world. The point is this; Christians must intentionally cultivate a Biblical worldview, that is truly cross-cultural — or he will absorb the prevailing worldview of whichever culture they find themselves in.
3. I do not see collectivism in the gathering of manna since every man was to gather enough manna for himself and/or his household. So we see the individual heads of households working to provide the needs of their families.
I also note that the Israelites did not to gather manna and place it in a community storage tent, where it was then distributed by the tribal leaders (government) according to their definition of an individuals need.
So no, I do not see an example of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” anywhere in the Law. However, you rightly observe that individuals were being taught not to be greedy and hoard.
By: markcarlton on November 20, 2009
at 2:20 pm
Mark & Tunji,
I have to agree with Mark’s assessment, I’m not an expert on the post modern topic however from what I have researched, I’d like to add to Mark’s thoughts from 20 Nov. 2009 @ (14:20:28), to give a little more insight as to why the term is an oxymoron:
Post modern “Christians”, notably the Emergents, can be described as being “liberal”in the faith. I mean liberal in a subjective sense. If I were to try to equate the present day “liberal” views to that of the early Church, I’d say that the Corinthians situation was indicative of being liberal about what God had commanded ( http://www.biblica.com/niv/studybible/1corinthians.php ).
Some apologists, ministers and teachers such as Dr. R.C. Sproul (Ligonier ministries), John MacArthur (Grace to You), Chris Rosebrough (Fighting for the Faith) & Dr. James White (Alpha & Omega Minsitries) are in agreement that once Scripture is not held as being authoritative (2nd Timothy 3:14-17) ; it, Scripture, becomes subject to whatever the reader wants it to mean. With that view of Scripture there is a progression or at least the potential, to question anything and everything that God has revealed in His Word. The “faith” that you’re left with is one where doctrine is turned upside down, “evil is called good and good is called evil, black is white and white is black”, or at best there are shades of gray.
Tunji, I hope this is of help to you in your walk with Christ (Acts 17:11).
Grace and peace be with you.
By: Christopher on November 20, 2009
at 6:16 pm
Mark,
The whole idea of the stool is a very refreshing one. It speaks a lot of truth as well. From there I begin to see your point on how my own views have been formed and why. It is sad that as my country becomes more secular the government would step in and fill the role of family and god. You do have a point that these communes can easily be infected with outside teachings. Unless the communities actually have a strong and able leadership who are willing to keep those who would poison them away, or when necesary drive them out, it will not survive as a true spiritual community.
I think I will take this and bring it to my own church and see how some of my fellows react to it. My own is a very nice little community that doesn’t have to many problems on the scale I described, but they exist as with anything (sadly).
By: Nicholas on November 20, 2009
at 11:26 pm
Mark:
I find it strange how you are laughing. For one your mention of Bill Stoke. His counter argument was laughable and I was simply polite enough not to mention that fact! His being a chemist is nice, but he never refuted the fact that the weapons were improperly stored! Nor could he provide evidence to the contrary! So how that even altered my knowledge of the subject is quite interesting!
As for his being a Libertarian, let me be blunt. 1. Ayn Rand was a fool so why on earth should I care that he studied her opinions? 2. You have no idea how old I am so what on earth does that have to do with anything? 3. Libertarian socialism (an oxymoron as you quantly call it) is simply just a name lumping those two words together (which is basicaly just taking ideas from each and putting them under one ideology hence the oxymoron please read up on the subject! It would immensley help you!) 4. I already said im an anarchist please read this:
http://lands.let.kun.nl/TSpublic/dreumel/anarchism/anarchism_text.jpg
Its a little smattering on what an anarchist advocates. So I hardly see how Im a radical hiding behind another word (as libertarian socialism is simply another form of anarchism). 5. None of these ideals contrasts in anyway with what Jesus would have taught nor with what Paul has said. I weep for those who do not believe but I know that it is wrong for me to persecute others based on their beliefs and thus advocate the freedom of expression. 6. I ask again that you stop making assumptions. Its fairly rude how you first dismiss my topics without reason and them assume how I live my life.
Also to add to Tunji’s bit about socialism in manna. You are presupposing again. Each man according to his ability would fit the bill on that one! You see you are referencing collectivization while by a communist tennant it would be that Tunji is saying that men could not unrightfully hoard goods and make more than another. Its a advocation of equality!
By: Matthew on November 21, 2009
at 3:18 am
All
May I very humbly appeal to all to kindly reduce the tone of our discussions an octave.I do seem to sense a rise in tempers. The blog moderator of course has a particular role to play here. And,I need to check myself first and most.
I do recall another blog that I used to actively participate in .I made the kind of comment I have above.But the blog moderator dismissed my comment,saying that I typically commented before thinking,saying I was silly.I randomly visited the site some weeks back and had to shake my head at how rapidly people and things can degenerate- I saw a free- for- all brawl.
Please let us remember that we are on a journey.The views I hold today are a world apart from my theological,sociological or political standpoints only 8 years ago.Our interaction is meant to enrich and edify us,strengthening feeble limbs,with iron sharpening iron.
Typically people will hold onto their viewpoints with great passion,but we must let the Word of God prevail at all times.
I do apologize to Messrs Stoke and Carlton for my comment about knowledge of Islam.I had no intention of bragging about knowledge.As the Bible says knowledge puffs up,but love uplifts.We must at all times proceed with love for brothers,and even those who do not share our faith.
Where I do not know much about a topic I always like to defer to those who do.I have twice called for more on Calvinism for example,acknowledging my deficient knowledge on this topic.I am unfamiliar with postmodernism,and therefore candidly said I need to study the subject more.You can’t debate what you do not know about.
May God’s peace be with all.
Tunji
By: tunji on November 21, 2009
at 10:40 am
Thank you for taking the time to attempt to restore a sense of balance to this discussion Tunji!
By: Matthew on November 21, 2009
at 10:11 pm
Some thoughts:
I don’t know if there is really such a thing as true anarchy, something always fills in the vaccuum, whether you have gangs, or tribes, or militias, or cults runnning everything.
I really don’t believe that the bible is a policital science book. Sure, I’ve argued that it recognizes such things as the right to property, but for the most part its not a prescription for how the world should run.
There really isn’t one set of principles that applies to every situation. What is the right thing? The right thing is the will of God, plain and simple, and either you can discern it or not. Samson knocked down the pillars of the Philistines in their arena killing them, and himself. The will of God is the right thing, and there is context to every situation. This is what is so awful about modern leftism, it simply assumes that the weaker side or force or the more victimzed or unique individual or interest is inherently more righteous. The ones who rail against predjudice are the most predjudiced of all, just human nature
I find the bible to be very anti-humanistic, there will be corruption and corruption and cruelty and hypocrisy are innate to the human condition. We need to save ourselves and others from the wrath to come. That doesn’t mean to just tune out the world, or not engage civically, but not to have unrealistic expectations or put ones faith in man’s institutions including churches.
The rise of socialism in the 20th century does seem to follow the religious apostisy of the people in that country. Again its just human nature, they become disenchanted with organized relgion and so find something more corrupt and perverse and overbearing, making religious idols of men.
Christ is the way, the truth and the light, and we find him in both the OT and NT.
By: Cupofwrath.com on November 22, 2009
at 12:14 am
Cup of Wrath
I find myself in agreement with you. On most of this anyway
By: Matthew on November 22, 2009
at 12:35 am
Mark,
Upon reviewing the statements you have made I found myself at a ponderance to the idea that communes of the Christian variety often fail. Churches themselves are essentially communes, communites that are enclosed. I would have it noticed that those that seal themselves off from the community they are situated in often fail while those that go out and get involved in their community will often flurish and succed. Perhaps a more proper form of monastic community would be one that was not secular but merely a form of support group and teaching group that would help its members and then let them go out into the world to form similar communities within other communities. What I am essentially advocating is the formation of a Christian Community not cut off from the world in a building, but literally a community. One very much like the towns we all live in. I would advocate moving out of our houses of worship and making the church a community, a living breathing community.
By: Nicholas on November 22, 2009
at 1:44 am
Nicholas, I agree with much you write. I think the church was supposed to be the very sort of community you describe, and at its best it is. Monasticism (and hermitages) becomes attractive when it is not. The growth of the house church movement is another example of this as are other modern reactions against the deadness of much if not most of the organized church. But the emergent movement is showing us that these alternative movements are just as open to false doctrine as previous experiments with communalism.
Even as a pastor I understand the attraction of communalism. I too am grieved by much that I see in contemporary Christianity, and sometimes I become discouraged with it. But when I see sincere believers looking for an alternative I often sense they are attempting to answer their own prayer. The prayer I am referring to is the Lords prayer; Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Rather than waiting for God to answer this prayer in His own good time, many Christians have attempted to build the kingdom themselves. Not surprisingly, these efforts generally turn out poorly.
I look at another Biblical model instead. I call it the Laodicean model. You may recall Jesus’ letter to the church at Laodicea in Revelation 3. I’ve noticed that the church described there bears an uncanny resemblance to the American church at the present hour (it sounds like the Canadian church may resemble it too). I note in that letter that Jesus is knocking on the outside of His own church but that his knocks cannot be heard by the entire church (my theory is that the synthesizer is too loud). So as He knocks he calls on anyone (individuals) who hears to open up and allow Him to come in and fellowship with them. Those who do this will discover that there are others like themselves in the room, and in the company of like-minded believers they can enjoy the sort of community you speak of, even within a church that is lukewarm. So, why not leave? Because the sad fact is that these churches, even in their lukewarmness, are still loved by Christ (note that though Jesus warns the church at Laodicea that if nothing changes they will be chastised. But he prefaces this warning by saying, “Those I love” I chastise), and these churches need the handful of sincere believers who are in fellowship with the master if anything is ever to change. In effect, the sincere believer in an age of lukewarm churches has two mission fields, those without the church and those within. But our desire is to reject our responsibility of being light within dimly lit churches.
By: markcarlton on November 23, 2009
at 1:42 pm
Cupofwrath, as usual, I am in substantial agreement with you. However I think I may believe the Bible has more to say about human governance and economics than you do. This is not to say that the Bible is specific about things such as democracy as opposed to monarchy, for example. As I pointed out, the Israelites moved through several models before settling into a monarchy like the peoples around them. But there are broad principles, like the right to private property, which I think are timeless and applicable to any civilization. What I am saying is this; the Greeks philosophers talked about what is and is not a good society. I think the Bible has some profound things to add to that discussion.
By: markcarlton on November 23, 2009
at 1:47 pm
Note: If you read this earlier there were a lot of mistakes in it. I wrote it in great haste. There still may be many mistakes in it. But I think it is readable….to some extent.
Matthew, I did make a bad business choice. But I think there is more to be learned from my mistake than that. I think you are painting with too broad a brush in you blanket condemnation of capitalists and capitalism.
In our country, most corporations are small businesses like mine, and the capitalists who start them are not all greed villains. Most are struggling, as my partner and I were, to provide a service, create some jobs, and, yes, make a little money. Most small businesses are Limited Liability Corporations, and are close enough to their employees that they still know there names and care about them and their families. But it is the job creator who is taking the risk, and in doing that sometimes the employees share of the money that comes in (as opposed to profits) is more than the person(s) who created their job.
So when the profits come in (in usually takes several years before that happens; sometimes it never does) the business owner is not doing wrong by those who helped created those if he keeps the larger portion for himself. After all, it may be several years before the business is profitable enough to repay his initial outlay of capital.
I think it is generally true that most employers also share those profits by giving raises and benefits to their employees. They do this for both noble and practical reason. Practical, because, as I can tell you, because good dependable employees are hard to find and you want to keep them when you get them. And to keep them you need to pay them well.
As to my laughter; a good example of my personal need of moderation. But also a good example of an logical fallacy on yours.
You stated, “He never refuted the fact that the weapons were improperly stored! Nor could he provide evidence to the contrary!” Indeed, no one can prove a negative. For example, the fact that I not have conclusive evidence that you not a Neanderthal does not prove that you are. This logical fallacy goes to the burden of proof. In this case, those who are saying you are a Neanderthal have the burden of proof. The fact that I cannot prove them wrong does not prove their case.
You commit a second logical fallacy, a fallacy of generalizaation. You do this by trying to prove too much based on too small a sampling; you do this by assuming that the sample you have is sufficient to make the broad generalization you have made. Here’s your specific mistake; you are saying “the improperly stored WMDs we found provide us enough data to conclude that ALL of Sadam’s weapons were improperly stored.” That is one possible interpretation of the data. Another interpretation is that those weapons were found — rather than moved elsewhere — because they were worthless, having been improperly stored.
This is the reason we make this sort of reasoning error; when a person proposes a proposition, but doesn’t have enough evidence to prove it, the natural tendency is to try to shift the burden to those objecting to the proposition.
Now let’s look specifically at our recent debate. I argued that there is some evidence that Sadam did possess WMDs and that they were moved to Syria before the war. I admitted that there is not enough evidence to say this conclusively, but that the evidence is sufficient to question the absolute assertion that he did not have WMDs.
You, countered with the dogmatic assertion that we know this did not happen because of these weapons degrade over time. Bill Stokes then confused the issue with facts, by informing you, first of his credentials, then of the fact chemical and biological weapons do not degrade if properly stored.
You then with an overly broad counter argument based on the assumption that the improperly stored WMDs we found represent the entire Iraqi arsenal. This was trying to prove too much based on the available evidence. The most you can — our should — say is found is that if all of Iraq’s weapons were stored like the few we found is then they would be worthless by now. But we still have the evidence I referred to which suggests another possibility. Does the evidence I cited prove you wrong? NO! But it does leave the argument unresolvable based on our present knowledge.
You, however, are absolutely committed to the proposition that Bush lied, and so you are unwilling to leave the issue unresolved. But your reasons for this are emotional and philosophical, not because the available evidence lends itself to no other interpretation. I, in contrast, am willing to say the evidence is insufficient to say whether or not Sadam had WMDs, this, then, leaves me agnostic on the question of whether or not Bush lied.
By: markcarlton on November 23, 2009
at 2:09 pm
Mark:
I definiately agree that there are some broad principles and especially lessons to be learned from the bible with respect to government, but there is also a tendency on the right (I suppose I do this sometimes) to make a kind of “American gospel” out of American history and the founding fathers etc. What works in one time or place might not work in another. More specifically, I think government is about choosing the lesser of a series of evils, and there is no specific “biblical formula” for how it should work. I think we should be cynical about those in power in general.
Some more thoughts:
Its interesting in reading the NT how the early church was a kind of commune within itself where people sold what they had and gave their money to the church. Paul also speaks of having authority over the churches and being able to discipline them. There were also many genuine miracles done that helped to establish the church.
I often see modern denominations trying to emulate what they read about in the NT both with respect to church authority and the miracles and so on (i certainly do believe in miracles, just not with the frequency of the early church). I always felt that this was wrong because the early church under Paul and the apostles was a kind a golden age when it had to be established on a solid foundation to survive. Paul writes even during his time that impostors and wolves in sheeps clothing were slipping in and corrupting the church.
I think the description in Revelation where Jesus rejects 5/7 churches is more accurate for the current dispensation, the true church is more like scattered points of light trying to keep the faith alive till Christ returns, and save for those individuals who really are doing his work it would become utterly dead.
By: Cupofwrath.com on November 23, 2009
at 6:46 pm
This relates to the general pressures on the church to change and corrupt things and turn the gospel into a kind of self serving doctrine. “My Jesus” as opposed to the real Jesus. This also relates back to the importance of a true biblical worldview.
By: Cupofwrath.com on November 23, 2009
at 7:00 pm
Cupofwrath, I agree with you so much I sometimes feel redundant. I to think there is a tendency to make an American gospel. The problem is, as with all false gospels, that there is some truth in it. America does have a unique, protestant/Christian heritage, and its basic institution reflect that. However, in recent days we seem to be determined to fulfill the prophecy of Psalms 2:1-3.
I think the NT church was certainly more communal than the modern church. But I cannot find evidence that the Jerusalem church’s experiment with out and out communalism was repeated elsewhere. I also note that it did not work, long-term, in Jerusalem either. Before long the church in which no one had needs because of communalism, had need for offerings from other churches because of their poverty.
I do think it is telling the Christ rejected 5 of the 7 churches in Asia, in all or in part. It would seem that nothing changes.
By: markcarlton on November 23, 2009
at 7:31 pm
Mark:
For my broad generalization I can admit that is was a generalization (though not to far from the the facts i think). Indeed what many anarchists (and socialists) say is that the intense monopolies of many corporations drives smaller ones into the arms of other bigger corporations (how do you define a corporation anyway as I think were talking about two different things or at least have two different understandings). They see it as forcing workers to work in employment they might not enjoy or wishing to do things differently. Many workers also have no control over their means of production so that means that they really don’t have a choice in what they do. That and these corporations do pursue many abuses of their workers (An interesting documentry is “The Corporation” by Joel Bakan).
So that I find is my main beef with capitalism. The unrestricted ability to establish a monopoly and ruthlessly abuse it. That and It puts smaller businesses out of business. Though you did only give me your small business to make an example off of. I can give you some bigger examples if you wish though i would really suggest watching the Corporation first. Or at least looking it up.
As to the most recent debate:
I never came to the conclusion that all of the weapons were improperly stored. What I came to was that the ones we found were. Now if the conditions were like what the UN inspectors had seen during the inspections at all such facilities (This is most likely the case as US forces were able to sweep the country thoroughly and found most of the sites were in disrepair and again I’ll add that they found none whatsoever after the fact). You admitted that yes your hypothesis is shaky. Mine does rest on more solid ground. For instance like the source I states earlier on in the UN report they concluded that Iraq had delivered their end of the bargan and it would simply take a few more months as they were cooperating. My presuposition is one that follows the facts from both sides of the coin (The UN, the US) except for a few rogue exiled Iraqi generals of course
. This is merely someone who is looking at it objectively with credible sources and not jumping at a conspiracy theory (like those who would like to believe that Bush flew the planes into the towers).
Personally I don’t see why you have brought this up or called me dogmatic. Why it is even important now? It really has nothing to do with our current conversation.
By: Matthew on November 23, 2009
at 10:43 pm
Agreed with the need to be a light both within the church and without. As to establishing Gods world here, I would say that perhaps it is wishful thinking that I speak of a “Godly Community”. At the same time I dont think it is unreasonable to have a “Godly Community within the Community” or essentially a strong fellowship of believers in a house church. I believe a house Church to be an excellent method of “fishing men”. I think it is far easier to enter someones domicile and speak of god in small groups than in a large building on a sunday morning where people will watch and gawk ( as is the tendency ).
However I do agree that many emergent churches try to sweep away the Justice of the Lords punishment, such as the Shack. I will admit I enjoyed the book, I didn’t find it immensely heretical with what I was able to discern from it, but it certainly presented a far to “soft” version of the Lord’s Justice. But I don’t harp on them for trying that approach, however it is far from true in some instances. The Emergent Church does well in its mission to convert souls, and all one needs to get into heaven is faith in the Lord Jesus our Savior. I certainly think that they should emphasise the important if doing good deeds on earth and that sin will be a thwart to you and your walk with with God. The shcaks statement that all three God Head suffered on the Cross and that there is not hierarchy among the God Head Three In One, is defenitly heresy worthy of strong rebuke and deep meditation on the word on their parts.
By: Nicholas on November 24, 2009
at 12:37 am
Nicholas, I agree with you almost completely on paragraph one. In fact, I was attempting to advocate creating a Godly community within the community in my last post. I’m sorry if that’s not clear. As to the shack, I agree with you there too. Like you, I enjoyed reading the book, and I thought the author made some good points. Enjoyed as a work of fiction I have no problem with it, but from a doctrinal standpoint it is heresy. As to the emergent church. Perhaps it is residual reformed theology in me, but I am not sure that the emergent church’s gospel is really converting anyone. I am also not sure I agree with your statement that all one needs to get to heaven is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It would depend on your definition of faith. Note for example Paul’s definition of his message to the Ephesians elders in Acts 20:20-21: “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jew and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” I am not saying that we are saved by faith and works, or that repentance is a work. What I am saying is that faith that does not manifest itself in repentance is not saving faith. Thus, repentance toward God is an aspect of the faith that saves. Minus is, is there real salvation?
By: markcarlton on November 24, 2009
at 9:12 pm
Mark,
I am terribly sorry to have confused you with the faith comment! :O I did mean it as in the sense as “faith he is our savior!” It os true we cannot get into heaven in faith that he merely existed. One has to commit to a life of bettering themselves and living for God/Christ/The Spirit and a holy life to actually get into heaven and be accepted by the Lord. Granted to have your name in the book of life all you need do is acknowledge that Christ died for you on Calvary and died for your sins so that you might be redeemed in his blood and sacrifice. Truly that is the only way into heaven.
By: Nicholas on November 25, 2009
at 7:16 pm
Nicholas, I think we are in basic agreement. If we were face to face we could probably clear things up in about 30 seconds. My point is that I questions about the gospel of the emergent church. Is it really THE gospel or another gospel. It seems to me that a gospel that allows the lost to continue comfortably in their sin is not the gospel we find in the N.T. It seems to me that the gospel comes with a call to be saved from something, sin.
By: markcarlton on November 25, 2009
at 7:24 pm