Dear Christians, The Follow-up

August 18, 200612:09 am Andrew Pflaum Comments

Ok, so most of you will say two weeks later he answers this shortly. Well I was distracted and not very motivated to write. Now I have finished. I am ready for you to read my answers to the questions. A little explanation, I answered the questions on the top, and then put the references with the corresponding number. I hope you can understand, and spend some time reading the passages, and then try and make a Biblical argument if you disagree with me.

1. What is the Gospel, what is its purpose, and what is it working towards?

The Gospel is that man is sinful, and separated from God. Jesus came to be the sacrifice for sin, and rose again, to prove the scriptures true, so that those who believe in him shall be saved from wrath an no longer be slaves to sin. The purpose of the Gospel is quite possibly the same as the purpose of Jesus, to seek and to save the lost. What the Gospel is working towards echoes its purpose. The Gospel is made to make Christians out of all people of all nations

2. When viewing the world, what problem requires most of our (Christians) attention, social injustice, sin, or other?

Sin is the problem with the world. Sin is what separates us from God. Sin is the cause of all problems with the world. Sin is the reason Jesus had to die, and sin is the reason man faces condemnation.

3. How should man interact with human laws and government?

Christians are supposed to submit to the Laws of the government unless they inhibit the spreading of the Gospel. If they do not hinder the Gospel and what it works towards, then they need to be followed or it is sin, if they hinder the Gospel then let this be the only flaw people find in us, we follow God instead of man.

4. Does economic inequality show a lack of true Christian behavior?

No. I guess I will define economic inequality, at least for me. It would be people making more money than other people. Now the early church did give up what they had so that every one’s needs would be met. They did this out of love for each other. I personally do not believe that just because someone makes more than another person it means that they have to split the difference with everyone else. I believe that if you know of and have the capacity to meet someone else”s need, whether you are rich or poor, that if you do not do that you are sinning. Of course I also believe that it essential that those who are able to work do so, so that they do not become burdens on others. Also we should not help those who are lazy either, because that is not showing love to them.

5. Do equality, fairness, and sameness all have the same meaning?

Equality has to do with existence. Fairness has to judgment. Sameness has to do with roles. All Christians are equal in Christ. All people will be judged according to their deeds. Yet each Christian has a different role in the body. This requires different gifts in both the physical and spiritual variety. This may also allow for a difference in roles for both men and women.

6. How should a Christian behave in a world where social injustice is not only allowed but even encouraged?

While Christians are to obey the law, which may allow for social injustice, they do not have to go to the extremes of what the law allows. We are to treat all Christians as brothers, and we should love each other. When Christians are in the role of what may be seen as an oppressor, they are not supposed to act as an “oppressor”, even though the law may allow for that. When a Christian is in the role of “oppressed” they are to submit the authority above them, out of love for Christ. Each of these are to do this so that those around you may see God through you and so God may be glorified.

1. Romans 3:23, Genesis 3, John 3:1-21, Matthew 1:18-24, Luke 14:16-31, John 4:1-26, John 6, John 8:12-59, Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 8:31-38, Hebrews 7, Hebrews 9-10, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 15, Luke 19:10, Acts 1:6-12, Matthew 28:16-20, Revelation 7.

2. Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Matthew 13:1-30, Matthew 18:1-9, Hebrews 12, James 1:19-27, James 5:13-20, 2 Peter 2, 1 John 3:1-10, Romans 6:23, Jude 1, Revelation 20:7-21:8.

3. Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-25, Acts 4:1-21

4. Acts 2:43-47, James 2-5, Matthew 25:34-40, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

5. Galatians 3:23-29, Revelation 20:11-15, Ephesians 4:1-16, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Timothy 2-3.

6. Ephesians 6:1-9, Philemon, Colossians 3:12-4:9

Creeds, Culture none

Edit in Admin

Andy

Kevin, I believe in some ways your are right. I think you are right, that we don't need to wait until we are perfect in order to help others. I even believe that one of the best ways to become more perfect is to do things in which you are showing a more perfect way. When we help others, whether it be a social injustice or anything else, we do notice are short comings and where we need to get better. We don't need to wait to "get right with God" in order to do something.

Also, on your sweatshop and slavery issue, I really think it would be hard to tell someone to just be patient. I think on the patience issue we are called to be patient when suffering. How long can it last, well until Jesus comes back. James 5:7-12. I also think a good Biblical example is the situation between Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon. As you may know Onesimus was a slave, who ran away from his master, Philemon. Paul could have sent a letter to Philemmon denouncing slavery and demanding the freedom of all of Philemon's slaves, of course I am not sure if he had more, and told Philemon that Onesimus was going to stay with him. Of course I believe that we all know the Paul sent Onesimus back to Colossae and told Philemon to welcome Onesimus back as a brother. And at this time Paul also wrote the words in Colossians 3:12-4:9.

I also think the problem that we have in these situations is a lack of understanding of the eternal. Whatever we are going through now, is temporary. When we go to heaven, there is no more social status. Rich, poor, and oppressed all receive the same reward.

I don't think that in the Bible we are called to end all the affliction in the world, but when we see a need, we need to meet it. We need to act correctly and obey the law at all times, unless it stops us from sharing the gospel. Then, we should have the only fault people find in us be that we are Christians.

Kevin

Wow its getting personal over here.

I'd like a shot at the submission/subordination section. I've been wondering for a long time what to make of this. Is MLK or Gandhi in the wrong (lets leave out salvation claims at this moment) for standing up for people? Is Bonhoeffer wrong? Many people would say not.

I find in Jesus the call to champion justice for the other. But when it comes to self, to live in oppressive service without grumbling. Now I certainly do not follow that aspect and I'm not even oppressed. Just deal with stupid organizational rules and low wages. So do I tell a slave, a sweat-shop worker to just deal with it patiently?

I think the mentality is the important aspect. If one is so focused on themself, they will fight injustice done towards them. I think Jesus is a good model to not do this. But if one speaks out and fights for the injustice done to others, regardless of what occurs to them, then they are in the spirit of God.

Now where does this lead? If you have a mentality of others first, likely you will not focus on the sin of the world, because sin is really only dealt with on an individual, personal level. It is what keeps the church highly ineffective because people focus so much on subtracting their own sins, that they become internally focused. Not so much what I see Jesus or Paul looking for. It is a Western idea that has burrowed its way into our world-view. If one searches out social action, one is often brought to their sins by recognizing their sinful ways in the wake of helping others. Helping often provides space for personal repentance...why, because one is not thinking of themselvf in the process, they don't have pride to cloud their repentance. It is no longer fear of hell that motivates us, but the fear and respect of God that sends us freely to give of ourselves because of what Christ has done.

So I touched on the submission issue, the most important pervading thing to worry about and in my opinion the essence of the freedom of the Gospel.

dave

It is very arrogant, it makes it sound like you have the perfect question and I am an idiot for not answering it correctly.
Sorry you find it arrogant. I simply wanted to make sure that I understood where you were coming from before I addressed the issue.
You have brought up things like Iraq and giving. I have stayed away from those things.
I have brought up those issues because they are relevant to the conversation. I am curious as to how you would respond to those issue in the light of your theological beliefs. They definitely are not off-topic. And it has nothing to do with wanting you to say something. I am simply attempting to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from.
You said that you thought that I thought the poor were poor because they were lazy, and haven't really recovered since.
Once again...I never you said the poor were lazy. And I am not sure what you mean by "haven't recovered."
Like I said before it is arrogant, and very snobish, just to restate questions.
Again...I was by no means attempting to be arrogant. I was simply attempting to make sure that I understood what you were saying. I am not sure why that offends you so much.
You have a very clear portrait painted of me in your mind, and you think you know what I am going to say, but when you are contradicted, you blame it on me.
Stop making assumptions. I don't have any portrait of you other than what you have given me. I truly don't understand your defensiveness. And if you think that my "portrait" of you is wrong, then show otherwise. I am not looking for you to say anything. I have asked couple of clarifying questions and you have become offended and defensive.

Further...if you want to talk about arrogance and being "snobish", I am pretty sure that this statement could qualify:
spend some time actually reading the Bible.
You don't follow your own rules. You bring up issues from other conversations (which I have not done once in these discussions), you make arrogant personal attacks about me reading the Bible, you get incredibly defensive when asked clarifying questions. You are the one who started this discussion wanting to better understand where "we" (meaning Dave, being that the original post was obviously directed towards me) was coming from. Yet you are unwilling to respond when I want to better understand where you are coming from. You say that I just repeat my questions - I did that twice, just so I understood where you were coming from. Other times you either ignored my questions or refused to answer them saying that they were "unfair."

Smiles...I am not sure why you get so annoyed with me, nor do I understand why you get so defensive and feel that you are being attacked. I have no interest in personally attacking you (as you have done to me). I am trying to get a better understanding of where you are coming from just as you claim to be wanting from me.

Andy

Dave, I really want to explain things better to you, but when you do get an answer to your question, and you don't get a clear answer ask a better question, or this is all I hear, you really think that? Really? Really? It is very arrogant, it makes it sound like you have the perfect question and I am an idiot for not answering it correctly.

You have brought up things like Iraq and giving. I have stayed away from those things. You said that you thought that I thought the poor were poor because they were lazy, and haven't really recovered since.

Also on anything that has to do with the slavery issue, I can't tell what you are saying. I answer your question, then you ask it again. Like I said before it is arrogant, and very snobish, just to restate questions. You are not adding to this discussion, if you want a better answer ask a better question. You have a very clear portrait painted of me in your mind, and you think you know what I am going to say, but when you are contradicted, you blame it on me.

dave

Whatever is contrary to that is sin.
Henry...I like that. But that is somewhat unclear.

For example, in the above situation of a "lazy" person. Is it loving to give them food? Or is it loving to send them away and teach them a lesson?

Andy

Dave, if you were really concerned about understanding me, then why do you ask the same questions over and over. You have not listened to me, you simply look for any way you can to disagree with me. It seems that you focus is on disagreeing with me more than actual understanding.

You asked the same question twice about hurricane Katrina. I think that was because you want to lump me in the category with Pat Robertson, who said that Katrina was a punishment on the evil city of New Orleans. I told you that I believe not all suffering or things that are wrong are directly because of sin, or punishment for sin, but sin has caused the world to be the way it is, and without sin the world would be without suffering. While suffering and social injustice may be problems in the world, sin is the root cause of them all.

Also, in question number six, you also asked the same question twice. Which led me to believe that you hadn't read the passages sited there, you made no mention of the passages, or how I may have misused them, you simply asked the same question twice wanting a different answer.

Also, you were not being very fruitful in asking the same questions over and over.

I really think you just want to make me out to be a wacko fundamentalist.

Also, we never see Jesus say, "I was hungry and you paid your taxes so the government could give me food. I was naked and you paid your taxes so I could get welfare to buy some clothes."

I also never said that the poor are poor because they are lazy, which you keep inferring. All this leads me to believe that you throw out what I say, unless you disagree with it, and can make an argument.

Henry Michael Imler

When I think of what sin is, I think of the exact opposite of how God commands us to live:

³⁶"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" ³⁷And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ³⁸This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47...>

Whatever is contrary to that is sin.

dave

That is how your questions are leading. They are unfair.
No...my questions are not leading that way at all. Don't be so offensive. I am simply asking you how you reconcile your theology with some of your political beliefs. That is a fair question. Actually it is the exact same question that you originally asked that mostly directed to me.

You said that sin causes all problems in the world, and I am trying to get a better understanding of what you mean. When you say sin causes all problems, it is fair to ask if you believe sin causes someone to get cancer, or whether or not sin causes hurricanes, etc. Those are very fair questions and are the logical next step when you respond as you did.
I think it says something to the effect of, he who does not work, does not eat.
That is a fair interpretation of that passage. But again, I would rather error on the side of compassion. This is somewhat of a tangent, as I believe that very few poor people are actually lazy.
Why don't you read the verses on I have for #6 again, and spend some time actually reading the Bible.
Where the heck did that come from? I did read the passages from #6 - I am not sure what exactly you are referring to. When did I say that I disagreed with those passages? And I really don't appreciate your assumption that I do not read the Bible. You talk about my questions not being fair. Then what is with your foolish assumptions about me?

I am not really sure why you feel the need to be so defensive towards me. But I really do not appreciate comments like "some time actually reading the Bible." And if they continue, I will stop having this dialog with you, because it obviously is not going to be very fruitful with comments like that.

Andy

From your questions Dave, I believe that this is what it seems like you are trying to get me to say, "I am a fascist fundamentalist, who believes that if you heve some kind of sickness or disease that God is striking you down sinner, so you better repent or suffer like the poor who are too lazy to help themselves."

That is how your questions are leading. They are unfair.

Sin at the beginning of time brought death into the world. So one could say that sin is the indirect cause of all things wrong in the world. Now a heart attack, has its own direct causes, and could have nothing to do with sin. Of course death is in the world because of sin.

Dave, read 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 again. Then tell me where I get the idea that if people could do more, but are choosing not to, and becoming a burden on others, why we what does Paul say about that situation. I think it says something to the effect of, he who does not work, does not eat.

Why don't you read the verses on I have for #6 again, and spend some time actually reading the Bible. Then tell me what it says, and then why you disagree with it.

HT

I think that Scripture gives us a definition of the gospel that we never really think about. It is in 2 Corinthians 4:4, "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The gospel, that we have correctly defined as Christ's death to atone for our sins and his resurrection which gives us hope of our resurrection and vindicates our salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-4). But that is the glory of Christ. I know this sounds very Piper-esque, but it is something we don't consider enough. It is the very glory of God that saves us. 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." God reveals his glory to us and we are moved to salvation. It is just an idea that I wanted to contribute.

The implications of that is that we are constrained to defeat sin with God himself, not talk of living forever. We are moved to fight social injustice so that all might see the glory of God. We are submissive to government out of reverence for the glory of God. We love people because of Christ's glory. God's glory is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things.

dave

I am not say Hurricane Katrina was a punishment for sin, but the sins of those 6,000+ years ago had an effect on the world today.
Just so I understand you clearly, you are saying that Hurricane Katrina occurred because of the sin of the world? And you didn't respond to the sickness issue. Here is a concrete example: Did my dad die of a heart attack because of sin?
Secondly, did I say people were poor because they were lazy? No, I said that if someone is being lazy, and needs you to meet their needs, then maybe the best thing you can do for them is not giving them help.
I never said that you said the poor were lazy. I guessed at what you may say, and that is all. But I cannot see a Bible justification for not giving food to someone who is hungry simply because they are lazy.
Thirdly, the oppressed. About the slaves, my answer is yes, maybe.
Yes, they should have sat silently? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from...
War in Iraq... I think you are trying to get me to say something here that I am not prepared to say, so I will choose to not say anything.
I am not trying to get you to say anything. I want to know how you would respond. Should Christians in Iraq have supported Sadam? Or the U.S.?

Andy

Dave, I think we have a misunderstanding.

First, sin may be the cause of everything wrong in the world, but not everything bad that happens is a punishment for sin. For instance, Hurricane Katrina. God punished the world and destroyed with a flood, and saved Noah and his family. This flood caused the whole earth climate to change so that a disturbance such as a hurricane could exist. So it could be said that sin is an indirect cause of all weather problems we see today. I am not say Hurricane Katrina was a punishment for sin, but the sins of those 6,000+ years ago had an effect on the world today.

Secondly, did I say people were poor because they were lazy? No, I said that if someone is being lazy, and needs you to meet their needs, then maybe the best thing you can do for them is not giving them help. Also, if someone doesn't buy bread, how do they get it? Do they steal it? In addition, most food pantries and soup Kitchens are set up so that those who can't meet their needs, no matter how hard they work, get what they need. So no, they shouldn't charge.

Thirdly, the oppressed. About the slaves, my answer is yes, maybe. If you want to argue about slavery, then I would agree with you that American slavery was wrong, the reason being that in the Declaration of independance it declared all men created equal, and in the constitution it said that slaves were only three-fifths of a person. So the document which America was built on, the DOI, declared all men equal, but yet then that was contradicted in the constitution. Unfortunately, people had to hold onto this contradiction until it resulted in war. War in Iraq... I think you are trying to get me to say something here that I am not prepared to say, so I will choose to not say anything.

Secondly to lastly, I probably should have said treat everyone like brothers.

Lastly, I did shy away from men and women's roles because I knew that it would get way too much attention and the rest of what I have to say may get thrown aside.

dave

Smiles...I don't necessary disagree with most of what you said. But I do think you are leaving things out.

In terms of what the Gospel is, I think that you miss out what Jesus spends a very large amount of time on - meeting physical needs. While "saving the lost" is important, it is also important to realize that Jesus was very clear about how we need to treat people, especially the poor. He said that the way we treat Jesus is the way that we treat the poor, the hungry, etc. (See Matthew 25:35ff) If we focus all of our attention on sin we miss on a big portion of what Jesus calls us to do.
Sin is the cause of all problems with the world.
Really? So if you get sick, is that because of sin? Did Hurricane Katrina happen because of sin?
Also we should not help those who are lazy either, because that is not showing love to them.
I do not necessarily disagree with this, but my guess is that we disagree with what it means to be lazy. And that we disagree about why people are poor. I am not sure that this is the place for this discussion. But I think we should definitely error of the side of compassion. I also do not believe that any passage you gave said that we should not give food to the lazy. It simply says don't eat without paying for it.

Does this mean that churches should charge people to get food at their food pantries or the soup kitchens?

In our call to help those that need help, I do not see a Bible distinction between those that need help because of laziness and those that need help because of legitimate need.
This may also allow for a difference in roles for both men and women.
Not sure that this is the appropriate thread for this discussion, as it really should be its own thread by itself.
We are to treat all Christians as brothers, and we should love each other.
This is true, but it is missing something. We should only treat all Christians as brothers (and sisters!!), but we should treat all people as brothers and sisters.
When a Christian is in the role of "oppressed" they are to submit the authority above them, out of love for Christ.
Really? So the slaves should have stood silently? Should Christians in Iraq have supported the war there?

Henry Michael Imler

I have moved this topic that Casey and I got on to its own post.

Henry Michael Imler

Casey,

This is just some top-of-my-head thoughts, I don't have the time to get into any referenced material.

On the surface of things, I don't see why a having a penis qualifies one for being an elder, deacon, or teaching other men and not having a penis disqualifies one from doing those things.

I can see where a woman in the early BCEs would not have been effective in teaching, eldering, deaconing, ect because the culture dominated women much more than today.

If the difference between the sexes is hierarchitical in nature, then I think there is not a equal but different. If women have to always be in a supporting role, that is not different (besides the scale) to a master and his slave saying that they are equally important, but different.

I have not gotten into this on a study level, mostly because I am afraid that I will find something that I do not like, like the equal but different principle actually being mandated by God. How terrible is that? Anyway, and interesting book that I have read a little bit of and have mixed reservations on is Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham.

casey

Henry, your last couple of sentences got me a thinking about women's role in the church. That is one topic that we have never discussed. In America today, that is one topic that is on many peoples minds. I would love to hear what the other authors have to say about women's roles.

Can a woman preach? elder, deacon, deaconess, teach, teach sunday school with junior boys in the room? Does having different roles (men and women) make the woman lesser? Is there such a thing as equal but different?

Henry Michael Imler

I liked a lot of what you said. In number two you asked if sin or social injustice was the largest problem. I think that you are really asking if the cause or an effect needs to be addressed more. If there were no sin in the world, I don't think that there would be social injustice.

Lets see, do I disagree with you on any point? Maybe #4. Christ did not seem to ask what if the people He helped had tried to help themselves earlier that day. When He fed the 5,000 I don't remember Him asking if the crowd had the foresight to try to bring their lunches. I think you outline the great responsibility / compassion argument and that you favor the responsibility angle. I am sure that Dave would fall on the compassion side of the argument, I am not sure about the rest of the authors. I straggle, scratching my head wanting to teach a man to fish, but knowing that if he does not get one today, he will die.

On number #5, there is a lot that could be added at the very end.
This may also allow for a difference in roles for both men and women.
It may also allow for men evolving into dragons. It may not either. I think you are saying that there are different roles for the sexes. The philosopher in me cannot hold to that. The literalistic reader in me must. I am still working thru this because the different roles for different sexes seems so very anti-God to me.

Anyway, I am late for a seminar, so I must cut this short - I liked what you said overall Andy.

Theology for the Masses

Dear Christians, The Follow-up

Recent Comments

Categories

Tags

Author Blogs

Biblical Resources

Biblical Studies

Biblical Studies Blogs

Blogroll

Christian Commentary/News Publications

Philosophy Resources

Theology Blogs

Theology Resources

Pages

Categories

Meta