G. K. Chesterton (whom is never read without illumination):

The term “pagan” is continually used in fiction and light literature as meaning a man without any religion, whereas a pagan was generally a man with about half a dozen.  The pagans, according to this notion, were continually crowning themselves with flowers and dancing about in an irresponsible state, whereas, if there were two things that the best pagan civilization did honestly believe in, they were a rather a too rigid dignity and a much too rigid responsibility.  Pagans are depicted as above all things inebriate and lawless, whereas they were above all things reasonable and respectable.  They are praised as disobedient when they had only one great virtue - civic obedience.  They are envied and admired as shamelessly happy when they had only one great sin - despair.  From Heretics. Ch XII

Pagans believe in multiple sources of law, and in arbitrary and malleable processes for establishing law.  These are the manifestations of their many gods.  As Monotheists, we consequently believe in one source of law, and deny arbitrary derivations.

Paganism leads to fatalism, which reduces celebration to rite, with the same steps to the dances, same words to the songs, same vestments for the participants, and each detail must be precisely the same as the last time the rite was performed successfully, lest one of the gods take offense.  Monotheism is open, and spontaneous, allowing for individual expression regarding the one God, who regards creativity as the greatest homage to His creative act.

Paganism is a competition for status, with social rules occupying the foreground of decision making, and every superstition rationalized and obeyed in order to satisfy the requirements for respectability.  Monotheism views social activity as emerging and relational, with each party extending grace to the other and casting superstition to the dogs.

Pagans viewed the political and religious authority as divine.  The authority’s monopoly on power required absolute compliance and crushed individuality.  The Monotheist recognizes the authority’s position as a pawn, his power as temporary and subject to God’s decrees, as a man with no influence over eternal souls.

The Pagan puts on a happy face, and consumes pleasure as a fool, in order to drown his sorrow and despair.  He has no vision, and perceives a future no different from today.  The Monotheist sees into eternity and walks in joy, accepting pleasure for what it is and suffering as temporal.

Oh, that Christians would embrace their Monotheism!  Oh, what a sin it is to mingle the Pagan and the Divine!

Where does the incentive to torture come from?  Is it not among the most fearful of responses?  Is it not the ultimate demonstration of justifying the means by the ends?  Who can practice torture and expect to escape any consequences?

These are not conservative problems.  Liberals practice the same philosophy, only they have different ends they are seeking to achieve, and so there are different sets of means to justify.  The problem is in the legitimization of the use of force. 

I can imagine the use of force to halt a perpetrator from harming innocents justifiable.  Otherwise, I can find no excuse.  While Obama is to be praised for shutting down Guantanamo prison, he is doing so because it is practical, and politically feasible, not because it is ethical.

If he were to practice consistency in his ethics he would have to shut down most large city public school systems, where there is a whole different kind of torture going on.  He would have to let thousands out of the jails and prisons who have been placed there simply for selling their wares.  He would have to renounce the use of force in preventing peaceable immigrants from crossing our borders, without quotas.  He would have to end taxation, which is theft.

But, Mr. Obama won’t do these things, because he is not being ethical, he is being practical.  And we should not expect any more from him than this.  It is not the state’s role to be ethical.  It is ours, the church’s.  Therefore: if we seek release for the prisoner, we must accept responsibility for him as well.  Which is why I stated before, in response to the question, “Where should we move those presently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay?” they can come live with me.  Any other response is cowardly.

Nathanael Snow

People ask why I bother to engage that audience at all, and it is because I sometimes find myself in discussion with open-minded individuals who can think and challenge my ideas, or at least force me to articulate my beliefs more clearly.  This is precisely the kind of practice I require.

In that thread, lebeau identifies the following about my beliefs:

1. That Christians are atruistic agents expecting nothing in return

2. That non Christians are incapable of this altruism

3. That government is a polytheistic pagan institution dispensing arbitrary law, and is therfore not a valid concerning Christians.

Your presuppositions neccessarily lead you to your own conclusion…

All government is oppressive. The natural order will produce justice.

To which I add, in order to clarify:

There is one more condition necessary, that God is sovereign over the suffering of innocents. This directs me to live according to my ideals in the face of reality.

ATSRTWT

Nations means people of the nation, not the government of the nation. I Samuel shows us that God never intended a centralized government in Israel, but the law of Moses and the judges, decentralized.
Therefore the responsibility is for those who love God to feed the least of these, but nobody else has that responsibility for no-one else can do so in full virtue.
In other words, Christians of a regenerate nature can purely sacrifice of themselves to others with no expectation of temporal or eternal gain. We already have our reward, Jesus is our reward. We give out of His love to others.
For anyone else to act charitably, there must be some expected gain, whether temporal or eternal, thus resulting in less-than-pure charity.
If you say you are willing to accept less-than-pure charity in order to save the hungry you are placing ends above means, which is the same way neo-cons justify war. Anything is justifiable according to that philosophy. I call it fascism: whatever seems necessary. It is practiced by everyone who believes in the state.
I am for purity first because I trust in God’s sovereignty for the ends, and remain obedient in what He has given to me to do.

Gavel Bang to Minnesota Independent.

(btw, I’d LOVE one of these for Christmas!)

I forgot:

God of Abraham, Miriam, Hannah, Rizpah, and David…
God of Elijah, Amos, Ruth, Isaiah, Deborah…
God of Mary, John the Baptizer, Peter, Paul, Philemon and Onesimus…
God of Anthony, Ambrose, Dirk Willems, Teresa of Avila, and Francis of
Assisi,
God of Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, William
Wilberforce, and Oscar Romero
and God of love, grace, and hope…

Thank you for creating a perfect world.
Forgive us for the mess we have made of it.
Thank you for creating Jubilee, gleaning, and Sabbath as patterns to
ensure that the poor are cared for, the earth rests, and inequality is
dismantled.
Forgive us for choosing the patterns of empire.
Thank you for using the weak things to shame the strong and the
foolish things to confound the wise.
Protect us from becoming too strong or too wise.
Protect us from ourselves.

Forgive us…
for the groaning of creation
for the millions who die of hunger and curable diseases
for warehousing people in prisons and using them for labor
for the scandal of billions wasted in war
for worrying about tomorrow and storing up more than this day our
daily bread
for an economy that mirrors the seven deadly sins
for our Caesars and our Herods
for the violence and greed in our own hearts
Save us from ourselves.

Deliver us…
from the arrogance of power
from the myth of redemptive violence
from the tyranny of greed
from the ugliness of racism
from false hope and counterfeit change
from the cancer of hatred
from the seduction of wealth
from the idolatry of nationalism
from the paralysis of cynicism
from the ghettoes of poverty
from the ghettoes of wealth
from the blood-stained pages of history
and from the legacy of slavery.
Deliver us oh God.

Give us the courage…
to bless the poor in a world that blesses the middle class.
to bless the meek in a world that admires aggression.
to bless the hungry in a world that feeds the already fed.
to bless the merciful in a world that shows no mercy on evildoers.
to bless the pure in heart in a world of clutter and noise.
to bless the peacemakers in a world that baptizes bombs.

Give us imagination…
that we might not conform to the patterns of this world.
that we might shatter indifference and interrupt injustice with grace
that we might choose the cross over the sword
that we might be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves
that we might consider the lillies and sparrows as they shame Wall
Street’s splendor
that we might choose the dream of God over the dreams of nations
that we might cling to the God that so loved the world, not just America
that we might allow our Jesus to change America rather than America to
change our Jesus.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   Amen.

I cannot disagree.

Gavel bang (just this once) to God’s Politics.

First, I owned a T-Shirt in middle school with this image exact emblazened across the chest.  I used to listen to a lot of Christian metal back then, and Bob Larsen…

More recently I was tutoring two economics students, both middle-eastern, both wearing head-scarves. As economics often does (especially at GMU) the conversation turned political. The students’ concerns turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in contrast to US involvement in Afghanistan/Iraq. Why is the US so supportive of Israel they wanted to know?
My explanation:

“Many Christians believe that in order for Jesus to come back the nation-state of Israel must re-occupy all of the land promised to the people in the Old Testament, and that the temple must be re-built on the Temple Mount, replacing the Dome of the Rock. They also believe that the nation-state of the United States Government will be blessed if it supports the nation-state of Israel.”

This was one of the most vulnerable, open, and honest conversations about religion I have ever had with a confessing Muslim. I was able to confess my Lord, while discussing my own Jesus-Politics, and sharing in the grief which actions based on bad theology bring about.
While emergents tend to shy away from systematic theology in general, there are important lessons to be derived from a careful study and inspection of correlated doctrines.
Dispensationalism almost always ends (begins) with Zionism and implicit statism. The defenses of militarism and moral legislation which follow are among the most grievious blemishes on the Church.

Now, I tell people that I support the Jewish people, but not the secular (pagan), nation-state of Israel.  Inasmuch as the Jews buy land in voluntary transactions I am happy.  I also believe they have a right to defend themselves, collectively if necessary.  But I don’t support their government.

Many will say that without a government and military the Muslims around them would kill them all.  To which I say, let them move here.  If we had done that during WWII this problem wouldn’t even exist.  It was our rejection of Jewish immigrants during their hour of greatest need that has generated middle east tensions for six decades.

The first step is to reject force.  The next is to deny that God legitimizes the actions of the state.  The rest follows, and with it Dispensationalism dissipates.

Nathanael Snow

I have a small concern, however:

When we see an injustice created by privilege, our temptation is to expand that franchise rather than replacing the privilege with voluntary interaction and competition.  If you see Obama’s victory as expansion of the franchise, and are happy, then I am concerned.  If you see his victory as the end of white male privilege, and expansion of liberty, then I celebrate with you.

Gavel bang to Infoshop News.