I, too, consider myself a Biblical literalist. That is what makes it possible for us to have this conversation - we both recognise the Bible as the ultimate authority, and generally don't think it's speaking in metaphor or allusion unless it's very clear that it's doing just that. That's what it means to me to be a Biblical literalist - I don't think it's a pretty story, I think Jonah really lived, that Job really lived, etc.
As for Christian soliders - a place of disagreement I suppose. I think any job left to non-Christians ends up being a very bad job indeed, and that the job of soldiers is an important one. Then again, I don't consider battlefield killing "murder" or sin or whatever, it's just doing a job. And death is not the enemy, nor ever has been.
Thoughts this morning: I'm working slowly through the Bonhoeffer book, as I have energy. I am disagreeing with him VERY slightly, more in attitude than in what's written... I still believe in "cheap grace". But I'll get into that another day. My sis brought me "The Love Languages of God" which was interesting and got me thinking about the differences between believers and how it all works anyway... further thoughts coming there as well.
You are in my prayers... hugs and get well soon. :)
Hearth
Monday, January 28, 2008
Biblical Interpretation
Good to see you back. I am sorry to say that I am still not feeling all that well. Though over the last two days I had brief periods where I felt like I was getting better before an invisible truck hit me. If I disappear, it's because this horrid flu has overtaken me again. I haven't been this sick in years.
Biblical interpretation is a wonderful thing. I have never understood why Bible literalists call themselves literalists, as though there is only one literal interpretation possible. I think of myself as a Biblical literalist but find that my literal interpretation of the Bible is very different from other 'literal' interpretations of the Bible. Which is the whole problem with some forms of Christianity claiming to follow 'the truth.' Which literal interpretation is then true?
We sang "Onward Christian Soldiers" as well - but we had a very different interpretation of it. Let me quote it below:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
2. At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we, one in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.
4. Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
Refrain: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
To me the song has always applied the discipline associated with the armies of this world to the life Christians ought to lead. Christ is our 'royal master' - not the kingdoms of the world. We fight not flesh and blood, but the powers and principalities of the darkness referenced in Ephesians 6.
The New International Version of Ephesians 6 reads: 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
We are told in the Bible that the ruler of this world is Satan, the evil one. In Ephesians 6 we are told specifically, no matter what translation is used that our struggle is not against flesh and blood. Paul also uses the army metaphor here - but instead of telling us to gird ourselves with earthly swords and shields, we are told to arm ourselves with truth and righteousness - and the gospel of peace.
As far as people like policemen are concerned, as you know, one of my brothers is in the police force. And I love him and I hope he is never hurt and never has to hurt anyone else. I'd be perfectly fine if he had to give his own life in cause of saving someone else's life, as in hypothetically throwing himself across a train track to push some little or big kid out of the way. But he has to come to that realization by himself. He knows the theology so there's no need for me to bug him about it night and day.
But theologically, the policemen and soldiers of this world govern a world that Christians are not a part of in that way as in when Jesus said to one of his disciples, "Let the dead bury the dead." Let the non-believers of this world whose only hope is this life govern this world. It is not our eternal home.
I don't believe that Christians serving in the armed forces or in the police forces make this world one little bit better than non-Christians doing the same job. Christians make a world better by turning the other cheek, by giving up their clothing to one who has none, by visiting those in prison, by giving food to a hungry person. By seeing the face of the Lord in everyone they meet. Christians should have no one they see as an enemy.
You once quoted C.S. Lewis on his views on pacifism. It is generally held by scholars that that is weakest argument C.S. Lewis ever came up with in his apologetics. The argument about pacifism versus non-pacifism in the cause of war and state always boils down to splitting your Christianity in two: as in yes, one ought to be a Christian on Sunday, but not on Monday when you go right back to shooting your neighbour because that's okay. He's an enemy of a state that will pass.
I guess that is why the argument still rages to this day as to just how much Christians ought to turn the other cheek, and still we are arguing about who our neighbour actually is - we really don't want to love our neighbour or help our enemy Samaritan. So we use semantics to try and prove Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or he didn't mean it that way.
In the beginning of the same Ephesians 6, it states:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
In the not-so-olden-days and this was particularly the case in the US, that verse was used to promote the idea that God instituted slavery and whoever was against slavery was against the infallible word of God.
Not everything that is written in the Bible is written because it is good to live that way, or that it is preferable. The NT is not a book that tells us, like the Law of Moses, how to wash our dishes and how to clean our food, and how long to work our slaves and when to let them go.
Jesus preached the idea - love is all-encompassing as Paul wrote in his famous verse on love, which I won't quote here. From that we are meant to use our God-given brains and think about what that means to love our neighbour, to turn the other cheek, not to answer violence with violence. There is nothing in the Bible at all that tells us to develop a multi-personality disorder and to apply Christian standards of love only to the Christian - and more importantly to only to the Christian of our particular nationality and then to disregard everything Christ said, and go to war serving temporal powers that will pass away like smoke.
Slavery as an institution began to be questioned precisely because of Christ - and how we are told that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. The fact remained that we had to grow from being babes in our understanding and go from thinking that slaves were just a part of life and that was their God-given place in life because of the curse of Ham, to a grownup understanding that in Christ there is also neither Ham, nor Japeth nor Shem and we cannot hold our brothers captive. It is not Christ-like. When slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, God is being his gracious self, telling slaves who had every right to hate, not to hate. What kindness they had no reason to find in their hearts toward their masters, they could instead feel they were doing the work for God, with the faith that God knew what he was doing.
And what God did through his Holy Spirit was give understanding to the masters and where God's love exists, it is not possible to hold another person in bondage. That was the beginning of the end of slavery.
When Christians realise that that same love encompasses all human life, that God, who is not willing that anyone should be lost, clearly loves all human life, they will realise that Christians have no right at all, it is a sin in fact, though of ignorance (and arrogance) to take anyone's life for whatever reason, then we will be another step further to acting like we ought to.
After all, as you said, nothing happens that God can't stop in a minute. That includes wars. Therefore there is no need nor call for Christians to fight evil men in a temporal world. God has the power to stop it all as he stopped the storm on the Sea of Galilee, as he walked on water, as Peter walked on water until he was struck suddenly by his own disbelief at what he was doing. And Jesus said, "Why did you doubt?"
When evil men begin wars, and so often there isn't anything to say who the really evil man even is since evil men often masquerade as good men, the answer is that the same Jesus who walked on water and could have, but didn't, call an army of angels to his defence, says, "Why did you doubt?" Because, as you say, his will will be done.
Jesus preached a message of love, forgiveness and peace. He said the whole sum of everything he said boiled down to two things: to love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves. Who our neighbour is, he illustrated with the story of the Good Samaritan. Everyone is a Christian's neighbour - including an Iraqi soldier.
He completely overturned the eye for an eye idea of fighting that exists in the OT with that idea. He preached a new gospel, a new gospel that the prophets in the OT told us was coming, led by a saviour, who "was oppressed and afflicted,yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. "
Layla
Biblical interpretation is a wonderful thing. I have never understood why Bible literalists call themselves literalists, as though there is only one literal interpretation possible. I think of myself as a Biblical literalist but find that my literal interpretation of the Bible is very different from other 'literal' interpretations of the Bible. Which is the whole problem with some forms of Christianity claiming to follow 'the truth.' Which literal interpretation is then true?
We sang "Onward Christian Soldiers" as well - but we had a very different interpretation of it. Let me quote it below:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
2. At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we, one in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.
4. Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
Refrain: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
To me the song has always applied the discipline associated with the armies of this world to the life Christians ought to lead. Christ is our 'royal master' - not the kingdoms of the world. We fight not flesh and blood, but the powers and principalities of the darkness referenced in Ephesians 6.
The New International Version of Ephesians 6 reads: 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
We are told in the Bible that the ruler of this world is Satan, the evil one. In Ephesians 6 we are told specifically, no matter what translation is used that our struggle is not against flesh and blood. Paul also uses the army metaphor here - but instead of telling us to gird ourselves with earthly swords and shields, we are told to arm ourselves with truth and righteousness - and the gospel of peace.
As far as people like policemen are concerned, as you know, one of my brothers is in the police force. And I love him and I hope he is never hurt and never has to hurt anyone else. I'd be perfectly fine if he had to give his own life in cause of saving someone else's life, as in hypothetically throwing himself across a train track to push some little or big kid out of the way. But he has to come to that realization by himself. He knows the theology so there's no need for me to bug him about it night and day.
But theologically, the policemen and soldiers of this world govern a world that Christians are not a part of in that way as in when Jesus said to one of his disciples, "Let the dead bury the dead." Let the non-believers of this world whose only hope is this life govern this world. It is not our eternal home.
I don't believe that Christians serving in the armed forces or in the police forces make this world one little bit better than non-Christians doing the same job. Christians make a world better by turning the other cheek, by giving up their clothing to one who has none, by visiting those in prison, by giving food to a hungry person. By seeing the face of the Lord in everyone they meet. Christians should have no one they see as an enemy.
You once quoted C.S. Lewis on his views on pacifism. It is generally held by scholars that that is weakest argument C.S. Lewis ever came up with in his apologetics. The argument about pacifism versus non-pacifism in the cause of war and state always boils down to splitting your Christianity in two: as in yes, one ought to be a Christian on Sunday, but not on Monday when you go right back to shooting your neighbour because that's okay. He's an enemy of a state that will pass.
I guess that is why the argument still rages to this day as to just how much Christians ought to turn the other cheek, and still we are arguing about who our neighbour actually is - we really don't want to love our neighbour or help our enemy Samaritan. So we use semantics to try and prove Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or he didn't mean it that way.
In the beginning of the same Ephesians 6, it states:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
In the not-so-olden-days and this was particularly the case in the US, that verse was used to promote the idea that God instituted slavery and whoever was against slavery was against the infallible word of God.
Not everything that is written in the Bible is written because it is good to live that way, or that it is preferable. The NT is not a book that tells us, like the Law of Moses, how to wash our dishes and how to clean our food, and how long to work our slaves and when to let them go.
Jesus preached the idea - love is all-encompassing as Paul wrote in his famous verse on love, which I won't quote here. From that we are meant to use our God-given brains and think about what that means to love our neighbour, to turn the other cheek, not to answer violence with violence. There is nothing in the Bible at all that tells us to develop a multi-personality disorder and to apply Christian standards of love only to the Christian - and more importantly to only to the Christian of our particular nationality and then to disregard everything Christ said, and go to war serving temporal powers that will pass away like smoke.
Slavery as an institution began to be questioned precisely because of Christ - and how we are told that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. The fact remained that we had to grow from being babes in our understanding and go from thinking that slaves were just a part of life and that was their God-given place in life because of the curse of Ham, to a grownup understanding that in Christ there is also neither Ham, nor Japeth nor Shem and we cannot hold our brothers captive. It is not Christ-like. When slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, God is being his gracious self, telling slaves who had every right to hate, not to hate. What kindness they had no reason to find in their hearts toward their masters, they could instead feel they were doing the work for God, with the faith that God knew what he was doing.
And what God did through his Holy Spirit was give understanding to the masters and where God's love exists, it is not possible to hold another person in bondage. That was the beginning of the end of slavery.
When Christians realise that that same love encompasses all human life, that God, who is not willing that anyone should be lost, clearly loves all human life, they will realise that Christians have no right at all, it is a sin in fact, though of ignorance (and arrogance) to take anyone's life for whatever reason, then we will be another step further to acting like we ought to.
After all, as you said, nothing happens that God can't stop in a minute. That includes wars. Therefore there is no need nor call for Christians to fight evil men in a temporal world. God has the power to stop it all as he stopped the storm on the Sea of Galilee, as he walked on water, as Peter walked on water until he was struck suddenly by his own disbelief at what he was doing. And Jesus said, "Why did you doubt?"
When evil men begin wars, and so often there isn't anything to say who the really evil man even is since evil men often masquerade as good men, the answer is that the same Jesus who walked on water and could have, but didn't, call an army of angels to his defence, says, "Why did you doubt?" Because, as you say, his will will be done.
Jesus preached a message of love, forgiveness and peace. He said the whole sum of everything he said boiled down to two things: to love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves. Who our neighbour is, he illustrated with the story of the Good Samaritan. Everyone is a Christian's neighbour - including an Iraqi soldier.
He completely overturned the eye for an eye idea of fighting that exists in the OT with that idea. He preached a new gospel, a new gospel that the prophets in the OT told us was coming, led by a saviour, who "was oppressed and afflicted,yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. "
Layla
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Pacifism: Martyrs vs. Christian Soldiers
After a long hiatus of Christmas, hectic life, and a broken foot, I am FINALLY getting back to you on this. I pray you're feeling better as well... I am up to "not on Percocet during the day" so my brain is back (insofar as it was here in the first place - grin).
...
Coming from a religious tradition that had us singing, “I’m in the Lord’s Army” as children and “Onward Christian Soldier” as adults, the concept of pacifism is definitely alien to me. Your assertions, however, were certainly a challenge and I’ve been mulling them seriously. (You know the more intense the conversation the longer it takes me to get back to you).
I sit and I think and review in my head, all the Bible I know. The Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s instructions to His disciples, Paul’s discourses, the examples of the early Christian saints and martyrs. That compares to the Old Testament, conquering and defending and the Revelation, where our Lord returns, sword in hand. What I end up with is a paradox. The paradox that a Christian, serving the government, can righteously bear a sword – and then must lay that weapon down with his uniform at the end of the day, as we are indeed told to behave peaceably to all men. So – personal pacifism is the law (although it’s emphasized more as not seeking vengeance or giving way to anger, and much less to cheek-turning).
Our Lord doesn’t call us to martyrdom unless we’re able to bear it. NOTHING comes into our lives unless our Lord permits it. Suffering for Him is honorable, and death is to be preferred to life. We are enjoined to live in peace with all men, and that does let out those Karate classes.
Christians as soldiers and police – if we live in a society (and you and I both do) where most people claim Christianity – shall we leave the ‘dirty work’ of keeping the peace to non-Christians? If we did, it would certainly grow very dirty very quickly! I scanned most of the NT this morning – nothing in it says we are to avoid government service, including armed service. Can a Christian be a soldier of Christ, as a paladin? A good question. So long as he protects those other than himself, I think so.
Now, another piece of paradox: We’re at war. Yet we are at war in the spiritual realm, not the physical. See Ephesians 6:10-20. See LIFE. How often have you felt under attack? I know that I feel like that constantly! So… bear the sword of the Spirit, stand, pray. And suffer what the world dishes out, knowing that God is in charge and that if we obey Him in all things, His will WILL be done.
Thanks for the mental workout!
...
Coming from a religious tradition that had us singing, “I’m in the Lord’s Army” as children and “Onward Christian Soldier” as adults, the concept of pacifism is definitely alien to me. Your assertions, however, were certainly a challenge and I’ve been mulling them seriously. (You know the more intense the conversation the longer it takes me to get back to you).
I sit and I think and review in my head, all the Bible I know. The Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s instructions to His disciples, Paul’s discourses, the examples of the early Christian saints and martyrs. That compares to the Old Testament, conquering and defending and the Revelation, where our Lord returns, sword in hand. What I end up with is a paradox. The paradox that a Christian, serving the government, can righteously bear a sword – and then must lay that weapon down with his uniform at the end of the day, as we are indeed told to behave peaceably to all men. So – personal pacifism is the law (although it’s emphasized more as not seeking vengeance or giving way to anger, and much less to cheek-turning).
Our Lord doesn’t call us to martyrdom unless we’re able to bear it. NOTHING comes into our lives unless our Lord permits it. Suffering for Him is honorable, and death is to be preferred to life. We are enjoined to live in peace with all men, and that does let out those Karate classes.
Christians as soldiers and police – if we live in a society (and you and I both do) where most people claim Christianity – shall we leave the ‘dirty work’ of keeping the peace to non-Christians? If we did, it would certainly grow very dirty very quickly! I scanned most of the NT this morning – nothing in it says we are to avoid government service, including armed service. Can a Christian be a soldier of Christ, as a paladin? A good question. So long as he protects those other than himself, I think so.
Now, another piece of paradox: We’re at war. Yet we are at war in the spiritual realm, not the physical. See Ephesians 6:10-20. See LIFE. How often have you felt under attack? I know that I feel like that constantly! So… bear the sword of the Spirit, stand, pray. And suffer what the world dishes out, knowing that God is in charge and that if we obey Him in all things, His will WILL be done.
Thanks for the mental workout!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Flu, flu
Hearth has a broken foot and over at my house, my husband had pneumonia and while he is recovering, I have either a very bad cold, or pneumonia or the flu. Whatever it is, it feels like I got run over by a truck. A really big truck.
Hopefully it soon passes and Hearth and I will be back to arguing.
Layla
Hopefully it soon passes and Hearth and I will be back to arguing.
Layla
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
If anyone is wondering
where I've gotten to, I broke my foot on the 6th and have been on narcotics since... this is not conducive to proper thought, so I've not been posting. I promise good posts when I can think and sit up simultaneously. :)
Hearth
Hearth
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Language
You're quite right that any in depth discussion requires or develops it's own terms with which to describe beliefs or a set of beliefs. The word "Christian" denotes a certain meaning, or should.
But if I get into a discussion about iambic pentameter and haiku to someone who's primary literature is something along the lines of popular paperbacks, I'm neither interesting them in poetry nor being very clear as far as they are concerned.
I was thinking more along the lines of words like 'slain the in Spirit' - words used more, as far as I know and I could be wrong, by Pentecostal types. Even the phrase 'born-again' doesn't necessarily have any meaning at all to anyone anymore. I don't think that Christians themselves understand what that phrase meant in the way Jesus said it. He didn't say it to confuse Nicodemus - he understood as a Jew a part of what Jesus was saying. The part that he didn't understand, Jesus explained to him, that body and spirit are separate entities and that the Holy Spirit revives our flagging spirit and guides us.
I find Let Us Reason to be an interesting site although I don't necessarily agree with everything they say. They have an interesting commentary on what being born again meant to Jesus and to Nicodemus. I don't think that unless the words are going to be understood they should be used, otherwise they don't make any sense and led only to confusion.
For some reason which I don't really understand, Christians (at least in North America) are some of the most uneducated and ignorant people around. As far as a lot of them are concerned, history begins with them. Every Bible prophecy means them. There's no context, no understanding of different readings of the Bible, no idea that other Christians in other countries might interpret things a bit differently and still be Christians in every true sense of the word. Talk about a 'me' generation. North American Christians seem to be the epitome of it. There's no discernment or trying of spirits involved. No 'righteous judgement.' Too many believe every spirit, particularly since the spirits of the day keep telling us we're the horse and not the buggy.
As to things like Noah's Ark - I think to some degree, everyone would be interested in whether it can or can't be found. But I think that too much looking for signs or for evidence from the Bible leads to really weird stuff, like the idea that interstate 35 is just waiting to be a fulfillment of Isaiah 35. Which brings me right back to the 'me' generation.
Layla
But if I get into a discussion about iambic pentameter and haiku to someone who's primary literature is something along the lines of popular paperbacks, I'm neither interesting them in poetry nor being very clear as far as they are concerned.
I was thinking more along the lines of words like 'slain the in Spirit' - words used more, as far as I know and I could be wrong, by Pentecostal types. Even the phrase 'born-again' doesn't necessarily have any meaning at all to anyone anymore. I don't think that Christians themselves understand what that phrase meant in the way Jesus said it. He didn't say it to confuse Nicodemus - he understood as a Jew a part of what Jesus was saying. The part that he didn't understand, Jesus explained to him, that body and spirit are separate entities and that the Holy Spirit revives our flagging spirit and guides us.
I find Let Us Reason to be an interesting site although I don't necessarily agree with everything they say. They have an interesting commentary on what being born again meant to Jesus and to Nicodemus. I don't think that unless the words are going to be understood they should be used, otherwise they don't make any sense and led only to confusion.
For some reason which I don't really understand, Christians (at least in North America) are some of the most uneducated and ignorant people around. As far as a lot of them are concerned, history begins with them. Every Bible prophecy means them. There's no context, no understanding of different readings of the Bible, no idea that other Christians in other countries might interpret things a bit differently and still be Christians in every true sense of the word. Talk about a 'me' generation. North American Christians seem to be the epitome of it. There's no discernment or trying of spirits involved. No 'righteous judgement.' Too many believe every spirit, particularly since the spirits of the day keep telling us we're the horse and not the buggy.
As to things like Noah's Ark - I think to some degree, everyone would be interested in whether it can or can't be found. But I think that too much looking for signs or for evidence from the Bible leads to really weird stuff, like the idea that interstate 35 is just waiting to be a fulfillment of Isaiah 35. Which brings me right back to the 'me' generation.
Layla
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Language
The language of faith I mostly think of as the language of any specific discipline. If you are looking to discuss anything that gets in depth, you'll find that it develops its own vocabulary. Random silly example: tubular. Being that I'm a SoCal gal, I know that that's a word expressing approval/that something is really good - because a wave that forms a tube is extremely good/exciting to surf. It's not that odd that someone raised in a Baptist church in America in a very mixed community and someone raised in a Mennonite church in Canada in a very German/Russian community would have different vocabulary. I'm always happy to explain anything at length, it's one of my favorite things to do. :)
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven are not *quite* the same as I understand it.
I am in the place where I am more interested in the proof of Noah and the flood as, "Wow, really cool stuff... of course it's true, but isn't it neato that we get more proof? I'm looking forward to getting all the details up in Heaven". My faith is absolutely not in question, my faith keeps me sane some days. But my interest in discovering answers (or attempting to do so) on this side of the Pearly Gates can definitely waver. :) I like discussing though, you keep my brain sharp.
Noooo... actually the Mennonites are sort of viewed as very legalistic but very right on. Like, "Wow, they really have the faith... but there aren't that many of them and I wouldn't want to live that strictly". Always assuming that we discuss other denominations at all, which is not quite true. :) If you want a funny, there was a HUGE difference between going to Baptist summer camp as a teen and going to Methodist summer camp. Baptist summer camp was strictly sex segregated and we were kept busy and/or supervised every minute except the few hours of free time in the afternoon. Methodist summer camp we were largely left to our own devices except a few hours of worship, meals, and activities. And there not only were boys, we had to SIT WITH boys! (My best friend in HS was Wesleyan, which is a conservative sect of Methodism, which is how I got to camp). There are a lot of flavors of God's children!
Speaking more personally about what I study most deeply, it would definitely be the epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, Colossians) rather than the gospels, although I get rather a lot out of Matthew chapter seven and the entire book of John. I am more interested in letting Christ work through me rather than working myself into Christ... does that make sense? I have heard many a sermon (and COMPLETELY agree) that it is impossible to live the law of the NT without the Holy Spirit working in and through you every second. So, I guess I spend a lot of time in working on getting myself out of the way and surrendering. Indeed, surrender to Him is one of the great themes of advanced evangelical sermons and of my life in the last five years or so. Work on the inner man and the outer man will fall into place. Work on the outer man and all you get is pride.
Happy Saturday Night!
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven are not *quite* the same as I understand it.
I am in the place where I am more interested in the proof of Noah and the flood as, "Wow, really cool stuff... of course it's true, but isn't it neato that we get more proof? I'm looking forward to getting all the details up in Heaven". My faith is absolutely not in question, my faith keeps me sane some days. But my interest in discovering answers (or attempting to do so) on this side of the Pearly Gates can definitely waver. :) I like discussing though, you keep my brain sharp.
Noooo... actually the Mennonites are sort of viewed as very legalistic but very right on. Like, "Wow, they really have the faith... but there aren't that many of them and I wouldn't want to live that strictly". Always assuming that we discuss other denominations at all, which is not quite true. :) If you want a funny, there was a HUGE difference between going to Baptist summer camp as a teen and going to Methodist summer camp. Baptist summer camp was strictly sex segregated and we were kept busy and/or supervised every minute except the few hours of free time in the afternoon. Methodist summer camp we were largely left to our own devices except a few hours of worship, meals, and activities. And there not only were boys, we had to SIT WITH boys! (My best friend in HS was Wesleyan, which is a conservative sect of Methodism, which is how I got to camp). There are a lot of flavors of God's children!
Speaking more personally about what I study most deeply, it would definitely be the epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, Ephesians, Colossians) rather than the gospels, although I get rather a lot out of Matthew chapter seven and the entire book of John. I am more interested in letting Christ work through me rather than working myself into Christ... does that make sense? I have heard many a sermon (and COMPLETELY agree) that it is impossible to live the law of the NT without the Holy Spirit working in and through you every second. So, I guess I spend a lot of time in working on getting myself out of the way and surrendering. Indeed, surrender to Him is one of the great themes of advanced evangelical sermons and of my life in the last five years or so. Work on the inner man and the outer man will fall into place. Work on the outer man and all you get is pride.
Happy Saturday Night!
Language
I seem to find myself with a few more minutes than I expected this night due to not being able to sleep which is due to the back problems I have. I'm a little worried that you might think that I am expecting you to respond to every theological aspect of Mennonitism that I post on. I don't expect that at all although I welcome any responses or comments or ideas that you have about anything I post about.
Part of what attracted me to your posts where we met, is that you see things or express things very differently in many ways than I would - yet I know you are my true sister in Christ. I watched you turn the other cheek many times and bite your tongue when people wanted to put the worst interpretation possible on something you wrote. I wanted to understand what you were saying. I guessed that some of the things you were saying weren't necessarily things I would disagree with - what sometimes made it seem like disagreement was our different use of words and a cultural gap. And unlike so many, you, dearest Hearth, were willing to explain as best as you could without leaping to the conclusion that I was being deliberately obtuse or worse still, rude.
It isn't just our American/Canadian differences - it is also that you use 'church words' as I would refer to them, something that a lot of church-going evangelicals or Pentecostals in particular use here too, and if you haven't been brought up in that culture, you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
I think that the church-goers who use the church words think of their words as an expression of faith. I think they are religious cultural constructs. I don't doubt their faith at all but I think sometimes they confuse knowing the 'right' words with the faith. And to me, and others like me, raised outside the church-word vocabulary, we don't know what such people are talking about at all, as Paul says to the Corinthians about tongues:
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
Too many Christians don't realise, that even if they are not speaking in tongues of angels, but using church language, the very people they want most to reach don't have a clue what they are talking about. I don't think I have that problem in so far as I have not been in a church for so long, that, like current secular slang terms (did you know that something being the shit means good and the shits is still bad??? Who came up with that, for Pete's sake?!), I don't know church language.
And I would just like to thank you for your patience with me.
Layla
Part of what attracted me to your posts where we met, is that you see things or express things very differently in many ways than I would - yet I know you are my true sister in Christ. I watched you turn the other cheek many times and bite your tongue when people wanted to put the worst interpretation possible on something you wrote. I wanted to understand what you were saying. I guessed that some of the things you were saying weren't necessarily things I would disagree with - what sometimes made it seem like disagreement was our different use of words and a cultural gap. And unlike so many, you, dearest Hearth, were willing to explain as best as you could without leaping to the conclusion that I was being deliberately obtuse or worse still, rude.
It isn't just our American/Canadian differences - it is also that you use 'church words' as I would refer to them, something that a lot of church-going evangelicals or Pentecostals in particular use here too, and if you haven't been brought up in that culture, you don't have a clue what they are talking about.
I think that the church-goers who use the church words think of their words as an expression of faith. I think they are religious cultural constructs. I don't doubt their faith at all but I think sometimes they confuse knowing the 'right' words with the faith. And to me, and others like me, raised outside the church-word vocabulary, we don't know what such people are talking about at all, as Paul says to the Corinthians about tongues:
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
Too many Christians don't realise, that even if they are not speaking in tongues of angels, but using church language, the very people they want most to reach don't have a clue what they are talking about. I don't think I have that problem in so far as I have not been in a church for so long, that, like current secular slang terms (did you know that something being the shit means good and the shits is still bad??? Who came up with that, for Pete's sake?!), I don't know church language.
And I would just like to thank you for your patience with me.
Layla
Friday, January 4, 2008
I should have looked up the phrase "the kingdom of heaven is within you' but I got lazy. I don't have such a great memory nor do I spend hours poring through the Bible for appropriate verse and chapter. The link to BibleGateway on this site contains passage and keyword searches and when I quote from the Bible - often only having a vague memory of something - that finds it right away.
So the book is Luke, chapter 17: 20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Oh please, don't feel badly if you don't have the answers. I am not sure anyone does. I did a search on the Sermon of the Mount to see how other Christian denominations interpret it and couldn't come across anything that implied that people thought it belonged to the millennial kingdom.
I did come across a sermon by a Greek Orthodox priest who made an observation that I thought was dead on but had never thought about myself. He says, in other words, that just as God appeared on a mountain to Moses and Israel with clouds and thunders and spoke to them via Moses, with ten negative commandments (thou-shalt-not), so Jesus appears also on a mountain, a mountain people can approach, and his commandments take the form of blessings, of positive commandments.
He goes on through each of Jesus' statements on the mountain with a discussion of each one, which is interesting to read. I mostly agree with him. In all honestly I don't know how Christians can disagree so often as entirely, and vehemently as they do. He obviously doesn't take the position that blessing them that persecute you means you shouldn't be a soldier or that you shouldn't take a vow in court.
As to that answers interest you but don't form the core of your faith - well, faith always has to come first. I don't believe that you can logic your way first to God, and then have faith. God is always about faith. My first, most simple faith is "Jesus, remember me, when you come into your kingdom" and from Job, "though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
People come to different points at different times in their lives. There are times when some Christians are deeply troubled and sometimes hostile to any sort of questioning or question - they feel that to question is to lack faith and so when scientists talk about the age of the earth, or how the dinosaurs got on Noah's ark or whether the flood covered the entire earth, it upsets them. They feel that it hurts or could hurt their faith.
Believe me, the Mennonite church I grew up in had that attitude. Any questioning at all was seen as a hint that blasphemy was sneaking up on you.
But I think that once your faith is more settled, that in your heart it doesn't matter anymore how Noah got the dinosaurs on the ark, when you come to the place where 'though he slay me, yet will I trust in him," then after a time, you want to find out more about God and reach a deeper understanding. And then after a while, you enter a zen-like state, where it doesn't matter once again, because you know that each individual has to come to that point by themselves and there is no help you can give anyway beyond a point.
I have no doubts that God is, nor any doubts that Jesus is, nor any doubts that my loved ones are in Heaven. I went through the horror of questioning at a very young age, and then I went through a period where I did not dare to allow questions to enter into me because I had enough on my plate. Now I am interested in the answers and different interpretations because I guess I feel they can help me grow in a deeper knowledge of God and his ways. But my faith does not depend on it.
The advantage to being aware of what you believe and why you believe it and having a solid context to put it in, is that when you are questioned about your faith and beliefs, you are able to answer them confidently, certain of the foundation on which your faith rests. We are also to want to know more about God as lovers who want to know everything about each other, from the age they were when they lost their first tooth, to the first time they suffered a broken heart. We are to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
If questions and answers never matter to us, then we aren't loving God with all our mind. That is the purpose of the religious Jews who make their entire life about studying Torah.
As to Baptists believing that Mennonites are really intense saints, that's a nice way of saying weird, isn't it? I wish it were true. I post about what Mennonites have traditionally believed, not what they do. I admire who they want to be when they grow up much more than I admire who they are now. Sometimes people can be judged best on their dreams, on what they aim for, rather than what they hit.
There are plenty of things that are not at all in keeping with their stated beliefs and how they live. I think non-Mennonites think of Mennonites as weird and verging on a cult to thinking that we all drive around in horses and buggies with a Bible in one hand. And the power that some Mennonite spiritual leaders have exercised over their flocks is indeed cultish. I was going to go into that today, but got sidetracked in answering your observations.
With regards to taking an oath in a court of law, I have been in court as a witness on several occasions and I actually think it is more of a technicality, like you do, the difference between 'affirming' and 'swearing.' But I don't like the hand on the Bible part at all. You may believe in the holiness of the Book but not everyone does and to me it feels like casting pearls before swine.
I don't think that the Bible is meant to be used like that in this world which we are told is governed by the Prince of darkness. I affirmed. No hand on the Bible.
Layla
So the book is Luke, chapter 17: 20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Oh please, don't feel badly if you don't have the answers. I am not sure anyone does. I did a search on the Sermon of the Mount to see how other Christian denominations interpret it and couldn't come across anything that implied that people thought it belonged to the millennial kingdom.
I did come across a sermon by a Greek Orthodox priest who made an observation that I thought was dead on but had never thought about myself. He says, in other words, that just as God appeared on a mountain to Moses and Israel with clouds and thunders and spoke to them via Moses, with ten negative commandments (thou-shalt-not), so Jesus appears also on a mountain, a mountain people can approach, and his commandments take the form of blessings, of positive commandments.
He goes on through each of Jesus' statements on the mountain with a discussion of each one, which is interesting to read. I mostly agree with him. In all honestly I don't know how Christians can disagree so often as entirely, and vehemently as they do. He obviously doesn't take the position that blessing them that persecute you means you shouldn't be a soldier or that you shouldn't take a vow in court.
As to that answers interest you but don't form the core of your faith - well, faith always has to come first. I don't believe that you can logic your way first to God, and then have faith. God is always about faith. My first, most simple faith is "Jesus, remember me, when you come into your kingdom" and from Job, "though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
People come to different points at different times in their lives. There are times when some Christians are deeply troubled and sometimes hostile to any sort of questioning or question - they feel that to question is to lack faith and so when scientists talk about the age of the earth, or how the dinosaurs got on Noah's ark or whether the flood covered the entire earth, it upsets them. They feel that it hurts or could hurt their faith.
Believe me, the Mennonite church I grew up in had that attitude. Any questioning at all was seen as a hint that blasphemy was sneaking up on you.
But I think that once your faith is more settled, that in your heart it doesn't matter anymore how Noah got the dinosaurs on the ark, when you come to the place where 'though he slay me, yet will I trust in him," then after a time, you want to find out more about God and reach a deeper understanding. And then after a while, you enter a zen-like state, where it doesn't matter once again, because you know that each individual has to come to that point by themselves and there is no help you can give anyway beyond a point.
I have no doubts that God is, nor any doubts that Jesus is, nor any doubts that my loved ones are in Heaven. I went through the horror of questioning at a very young age, and then I went through a period where I did not dare to allow questions to enter into me because I had enough on my plate. Now I am interested in the answers and different interpretations because I guess I feel they can help me grow in a deeper knowledge of God and his ways. But my faith does not depend on it.
The advantage to being aware of what you believe and why you believe it and having a solid context to put it in, is that when you are questioned about your faith and beliefs, you are able to answer them confidently, certain of the foundation on which your faith rests. We are also to want to know more about God as lovers who want to know everything about each other, from the age they were when they lost their first tooth, to the first time they suffered a broken heart. We are to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
If questions and answers never matter to us, then we aren't loving God with all our mind. That is the purpose of the religious Jews who make their entire life about studying Torah.
As to Baptists believing that Mennonites are really intense saints, that's a nice way of saying weird, isn't it? I wish it were true. I post about what Mennonites have traditionally believed, not what they do. I admire who they want to be when they grow up much more than I admire who they are now. Sometimes people can be judged best on their dreams, on what they aim for, rather than what they hit.
There are plenty of things that are not at all in keeping with their stated beliefs and how they live. I think non-Mennonites think of Mennonites as weird and verging on a cult to thinking that we all drive around in horses and buggies with a Bible in one hand. And the power that some Mennonite spiritual leaders have exercised over their flocks is indeed cultish. I was going to go into that today, but got sidetracked in answering your observations.
With regards to taking an oath in a court of law, I have been in court as a witness on several occasions and I actually think it is more of a technicality, like you do, the difference between 'affirming' and 'swearing.' But I don't like the hand on the Bible part at all. You may believe in the holiness of the Book but not everyone does and to me it feels like casting pearls before swine.
I don't think that the Bible is meant to be used like that in this world which we are told is governed by the Prince of darkness. I affirmed. No hand on the Bible.
Layla
The Kingdom of Heaven
Most of the places I could find "kingdom of heaven" (okay, all of them... my reference Bible didn't direct me to the one you used, but I vaguely remember it - can you give me chapter/verse?) in Matthew were decidedly in reference to the Kingdom of Heaven as "Heaven" or the Millenial kingdom. So they were referencing a specific place/time. However, in answer to your "what do I think of the kingdom of heaven within you", I think it's in reference to either the Holy Spirit within us (a bit premature, since as it was Jesus speaking, the Holy Spirit hadn't been given yet), or the timeless nature of eternal souls. All times are now to the eternal... I've also heard that Jesus was refering to Himself, so He could have been saying "the kingdom of Heaven, aka Me, is in your midst, right now and you're too blind to see it".
I feel badly because I have so few answers for you. I am seeking, you see... and perhaps I'm seeking in directions other than strict answers. Answers interest me, but they don't form my heart at this time. Please forgive? The answers I have are the answers of faith. I think I'll make an effort to bring forward some of the things that are speaking to me just to bring them up, as you are with the Mennonite notes.
As you continue with your discussion of Mennonite practice... I guess I should say that the Baptists at least seem to regard the Mennonites as really intense saints of the Lord. It's not impossible for a Baptist to agree with the points that you've made - in fact it's even likely. But (sigh) I think they're more likely to feel that those are technicalities and not bring them into daily life. We have fallen off from the high standards of the faith, I'll be the first to admit that. Ah well, all of us serve a purpose, and we do bring plenty of evangelical fire to the table. :) Teenagers! (Which is what most of us evangelicals are spiritually - teenagers).
Therefore, I believe that the "God first" is something we don't bother to say, as it's assumed to be understood by those taking oaths. (BTW I don't consider the Pledge of Allegiance an "oath", I'd call it an affirmation. An oath of service is an oath though). You are allowed to affirm here as well, I don't know if they offer it up straightaway, my courtroom knowledge is limited to the television set, and frankly I don't watch that much TV. (Would I personally swear an oath on the Bible - yes. Why? Because it *would* make it more serious to me, and I would take an oath sworn on the Bible more seriously. Whereas Jesus says let your yea be yea and your nay, nay... you are also allowed to take oaths, Paul took a Jewish vow in the Temple after he was converted. You're not required to take oaths, ever - but you're to know that having done so, they are now much more serious than they'd be to an unsaved person). (And of course... if we lived in a society that felt that their yeas were yeas and nays nays, why those would be oaths enough. There's a good reason to think that the sermon on the mount might be in reference to the Millenial kingdom!)
Speaking of which, I did a bit of looking 'round. The sermon I mentioned was Dr. McGee, but it's well buried on the archives in his site. I'll keep looking, and maybe I can find his book on Matthew or Luke and give you a quote directly from there. :)
I feel badly because I have so few answers for you. I am seeking, you see... and perhaps I'm seeking in directions other than strict answers. Answers interest me, but they don't form my heart at this time. Please forgive? The answers I have are the answers of faith. I think I'll make an effort to bring forward some of the things that are speaking to me just to bring them up, as you are with the Mennonite notes.
As you continue with your discussion of Mennonite practice... I guess I should say that the Baptists at least seem to regard the Mennonites as really intense saints of the Lord. It's not impossible for a Baptist to agree with the points that you've made - in fact it's even likely. But (sigh) I think they're more likely to feel that those are technicalities and not bring them into daily life. We have fallen off from the high standards of the faith, I'll be the first to admit that. Ah well, all of us serve a purpose, and we do bring plenty of evangelical fire to the table. :) Teenagers! (Which is what most of us evangelicals are spiritually - teenagers).
Therefore, I believe that the "God first" is something we don't bother to say, as it's assumed to be understood by those taking oaths. (BTW I don't consider the Pledge of Allegiance an "oath", I'd call it an affirmation. An oath of service is an oath though). You are allowed to affirm here as well, I don't know if they offer it up straightaway, my courtroom knowledge is limited to the television set, and frankly I don't watch that much TV. (Would I personally swear an oath on the Bible - yes. Why? Because it *would* make it more serious to me, and I would take an oath sworn on the Bible more seriously. Whereas Jesus says let your yea be yea and your nay, nay... you are also allowed to take oaths, Paul took a Jewish vow in the Temple after he was converted. You're not required to take oaths, ever - but you're to know that having done so, they are now much more serious than they'd be to an unsaved person). (And of course... if we lived in a society that felt that their yeas were yeas and nays nays, why those would be oaths enough. There's a good reason to think that the sermon on the mount might be in reference to the Millenial kingdom!)
Speaking of which, I did a bit of looking 'round. The sermon I mentioned was Dr. McGee, but it's well buried on the archives in his site. I'll keep looking, and maybe I can find his book on Matthew or Luke and give you a quote directly from there. :)
Mennonites and Oath Swearing
Another weird Mennonite factoid that people may have heard of but may be unaware of just why it is that in traditional Mennonite belief, they do not swear oaths. For example, in a court of law, the whole put-your-hand-on-the-Bible-and-solemnly-swear-to-tell-the-truth thing is against Mennonite interpretation of Mattthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, in this regard:
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
When Mennonites do end up in a situation, like a court of law, where they are required to swear some sort of oath, they don't put their hand on the Bible and they affirm that what they are about to say it true. They don't swear.
The context of that particular passage, seems to me to be about not making promises to God that you may not be able to keep and I suppose that Christians who do swear oaths take it as they are swearing oaths to the state, not to God, so that the instruction in Matthew doesn't apply.
However, this is where the Vulcan in me comes out: It is illogical to take criminal of some sort (assuming he or she is guilty) to court and expect that he will tell the truth simply because his hand is on the Bible. Truth needs no embellishment. I am either telling the truth or I am not telling the truth. So it makes much more sense to me not to make a mockery of either truth or God by putting one's hand on the Bible since if God struck dead all the liars who have put their hands on the Bible and swore to tell the truth, there would be distinct decline in the general population, and no former heads of state to be found anywhere in the world.
God clearly does not strike people dead and the hand on the Bible does not make someone determined to lie tell the truth so the most logical thing a person can do, Christian or not, is to simply affirm to tell the truth. I don't know how it is in US courts but here, possibly because of the large Mennonite population, the few court cases I have seen have always given a person that option straight away. You don't have to ask for it specially.
I haven't researched it but would be interested to know where the idea came from anyway, that putting one's hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth imbued some inability to lie. Particularly in this day and age, in which people are very lost and often believe and have faith in nothing, not even their very own selves, the Bible has no more importance to truth-telling than Playboy magazine.
This swearing of oaths also applies to everything else. I believe there have been issues in the States with regards to some parents not allowing or wanting their children to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the flag. Among the Amish and Mennonites, the above reasoning would be why they don't want to do that, coupled with the idea that our citizenship is in Heaven, with the Eternal, not the temporal, and the implication in swearing allegiance to anyone but God implies that God is not in first place.
This is partly also why traditionally Mennonites were not to hold any sort of public office - many of them require the swearing of an oath and to Mennonites all potential promises come with a caveat - that they will obey God rather than men. Even if the state in which they are residing is a good state, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way, and they want to avoid swearing an oath to a country, seeing it sort of like a blank cheque, that they might, or their children might later oppose in some way, if that state requires something of them that is not in keeping with their Christian faith.
I remember the link that you posted to the Christian flag which I didn't know existed and actually, I don't think that outside of the US many Christians would be aware of that flag. I have asked a few people whether they have ever heard of a Christian flag and none of them had.
I saw the Christian flag thing and the oath, as a well-meaning attempt by an American pastor to redirect American Christians to where their allegiance ought first to lie - to Christ and not to the state. He assumed that the rest of the world had the same problem. But to my way of thinking, he failed, in his attempt to make it some sort of worldwide symbol of Christianity because flag worship just isn't in most of the world's mentality.
We have no flag here that we pay allegiance to. The closest thing that we ever had to something similiar was singing "God Save the Queen," which was more in keeping with praying for those who are in power, and that God will direct them in righteous paths, than swearing a blank cheque oath to a state, which being of this world, will pass one way or the other.
Layla
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
When Mennonites do end up in a situation, like a court of law, where they are required to swear some sort of oath, they don't put their hand on the Bible and they affirm that what they are about to say it true. They don't swear.
The context of that particular passage, seems to me to be about not making promises to God that you may not be able to keep and I suppose that Christians who do swear oaths take it as they are swearing oaths to the state, not to God, so that the instruction in Matthew doesn't apply.
However, this is where the Vulcan in me comes out: It is illogical to take criminal of some sort (assuming he or she is guilty) to court and expect that he will tell the truth simply because his hand is on the Bible. Truth needs no embellishment. I am either telling the truth or I am not telling the truth. So it makes much more sense to me not to make a mockery of either truth or God by putting one's hand on the Bible since if God struck dead all the liars who have put their hands on the Bible and swore to tell the truth, there would be distinct decline in the general population, and no former heads of state to be found anywhere in the world.
God clearly does not strike people dead and the hand on the Bible does not make someone determined to lie tell the truth so the most logical thing a person can do, Christian or not, is to simply affirm to tell the truth. I don't know how it is in US courts but here, possibly because of the large Mennonite population, the few court cases I have seen have always given a person that option straight away. You don't have to ask for it specially.
I haven't researched it but would be interested to know where the idea came from anyway, that putting one's hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth imbued some inability to lie. Particularly in this day and age, in which people are very lost and often believe and have faith in nothing, not even their very own selves, the Bible has no more importance to truth-telling than Playboy magazine.
This swearing of oaths also applies to everything else. I believe there have been issues in the States with regards to some parents not allowing or wanting their children to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the flag. Among the Amish and Mennonites, the above reasoning would be why they don't want to do that, coupled with the idea that our citizenship is in Heaven, with the Eternal, not the temporal, and the implication in swearing allegiance to anyone but God implies that God is not in first place.
This is partly also why traditionally Mennonites were not to hold any sort of public office - many of them require the swearing of an oath and to Mennonites all potential promises come with a caveat - that they will obey God rather than men. Even if the state in which they are residing is a good state, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way, and they want to avoid swearing an oath to a country, seeing it sort of like a blank cheque, that they might, or their children might later oppose in some way, if that state requires something of them that is not in keeping with their Christian faith.
I remember the link that you posted to the Christian flag which I didn't know existed and actually, I don't think that outside of the US many Christians would be aware of that flag. I have asked a few people whether they have ever heard of a Christian flag and none of them had.
I saw the Christian flag thing and the oath, as a well-meaning attempt by an American pastor to redirect American Christians to where their allegiance ought first to lie - to Christ and not to the state. He assumed that the rest of the world had the same problem. But to my way of thinking, he failed, in his attempt to make it some sort of worldwide symbol of Christianity because flag worship just isn't in most of the world's mentality.
We have no flag here that we pay allegiance to. The closest thing that we ever had to something similiar was singing "God Save the Queen," which was more in keeping with praying for those who are in power, and that God will direct them in righteous paths, than swearing a blank cheque oath to a state, which being of this world, will pass one way or the other.
Layla
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Kingdom of Heaven
I find that very interesting. I guess I never thought of it, how other denominations see the Sermon on the Mount. I would be interested to see any links you could scare up, when you have the time, as to how some pastors associate it with the Millennial kingdom as opposed to right now. As I said, that was the traditional Mennonite belief but most Mennonites have left that notion behind them.
I think you did the right thing with the dog. Probably she was taking advantage of a spiritual relationship between the two of you, but the way I see it, when Jesus told us to give to whomever asked, he never once told us to worry about what their motives were. It makes life so much easier when you don't have to worry about motives. She will answer to God for her own actions, as we all will.
One thing that goes through my head at times, is what exactly did Jesus mean when he kept telling people that the Kingdom of Heaven was within them? He knew they were expecting a righteous ruler to reign as messiah, of the line of David. He knew they expected that this messiah would restore Israel to its former glory.
In some ways telling them that the Kingdom of Heaven is within them, makes it sound a little like he is saying that it isn't a real place - that it is an attitude or an idea. It makes it sound like it is attainable in this life - not that we have to keep looking to the next life. Yet, that idea makes no sense to me.
Thoughts?
Layla
I think you did the right thing with the dog. Probably she was taking advantage of a spiritual relationship between the two of you, but the way I see it, when Jesus told us to give to whomever asked, he never once told us to worry about what their motives were. It makes life so much easier when you don't have to worry about motives. She will answer to God for her own actions, as we all will.
One thing that goes through my head at times, is what exactly did Jesus mean when he kept telling people that the Kingdom of Heaven was within them? He knew they were expecting a righteous ruler to reign as messiah, of the line of David. He knew they expected that this messiah would restore Israel to its former glory.
In some ways telling them that the Kingdom of Heaven is within them, makes it sound a little like he is saying that it isn't a real place - that it is an attitude or an idea. It makes it sound like it is attainable in this life - not that we have to keep looking to the next life. Yet, that idea makes no sense to me.
Thoughts?
Layla
There's a primary difference, right there
The churches I was raised in preached from the sermon on the mount, certainly, but it wasn't the center of our faith. I'd guess the book of Romans or the other epistles would be closer. I've heard preachers say that the rules in the sermon on the mount won't really take effect until the Millenial kingdom. Not saying I agree, just mentioning the differences.
And that does bring us to a difference in the sheep in our respective flocks. Mennonites seem to err on the side of legalism and worrying about works. Evangelicals tend to stay babies or at best adolescents in the faith. The concept of not going to law would be a really high bar to set for most churches. (And when it's been mentioned in passing, it's mostly between believers rather than believer/non-believer).
I don't know that this is totally relevant, but.... my dog was chewed up last year by the neighbor's pitbull. She verbally agreed to pay all my vet bills and I had lots of witnesses, plus I have photos and vet records. She's never paid us so much as a dime. I *could* take her to court. I *could* call her and pester her at home and at work - I have both numbers. But I don't. Because I believe I'm not supposed to take a fellow believer to court for my own profit. (I can't do anything about having the dog put down, so there's no benefit to my fellow man). Fortunately my husband agrees with me! I'd still like the money back, it would make for a much happier husband (and was quite a sum) BUT I'll let God worry about it. I'm not sure that she's not using the fact that we're sisters in Christ against me... again, that's between her and God. Would I ask or expect a sibling in Christ to do the same? No.
We're all responsible to God for our own actions, for our own walks.
And that does bring us to a difference in the sheep in our respective flocks. Mennonites seem to err on the side of legalism and worrying about works. Evangelicals tend to stay babies or at best adolescents in the faith. The concept of not going to law would be a really high bar to set for most churches. (And when it's been mentioned in passing, it's mostly between believers rather than believer/non-believer).
I don't know that this is totally relevant, but.... my dog was chewed up last year by the neighbor's pitbull. She verbally agreed to pay all my vet bills and I had lots of witnesses, plus I have photos and vet records. She's never paid us so much as a dime. I *could* take her to court. I *could* call her and pester her at home and at work - I have both numbers. But I don't. Because I believe I'm not supposed to take a fellow believer to court for my own profit. (I can't do anything about having the dog put down, so there's no benefit to my fellow man). Fortunately my husband agrees with me! I'd still like the money back, it would make for a much happier husband (and was quite a sum) BUT I'll let God worry about it. I'm not sure that she's not using the fact that we're sisters in Christ against me... again, that's between her and God. Would I ask or expect a sibling in Christ to do the same? No.
We're all responsible to God for our own actions, for our own walks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)