Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from an American actress:
“I want to grow old without facelifts… I want to have the courage to be loyal to the face I’ve made. Sometimes I think it would be easier to avoid old age, to die young, but then you’d never complete your life, would you?”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top78 Comments to “Whirled Views 1.6”
Rats! I actually heard this actress say this in an interview . . . it’s on the tip of my tongue . . .
Report comment to moderator
This was bugging me so I looked it up. I did not see this interview. Another actress must have said something similar because if I’d heard this one say it I wouldn’t be old enough to remember it. There’s a clue.
Here’s another one, she was my exact height and weight in her prime. That’s helpful isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J and others…I went to see Marley and Me yesterday. It was a great movie, well worth the price of admission. Even though I knew the dog dies in the end I sobbed as much as my daughter did. It really is worth seeing for the whole message of family love and loyalty.
Report comment to moderator
Well it is time for an adminssion and an apology.
I have said many times that I do not believe that there will be any positive legacy from the Bush administration.
The following, however, suggests that there will be at least one positive legacy from the Bush administration:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/05/bush.conservation/index.html
This effort to protect the seas, and an earlier effort around Hawaii which I had overlooked, are indeed positive steps which have the potential for long reaching positive effects.
Report comment to moderator
Some of our Navy friends have been able to dive at Wake and a couple other islands generally not easy to get to and say it’s magnificent under the water.
I’ll never know. Seeing Jaws all those years ago completely freaked me out about swimming in the ocean, though a little body surfing off Bellows Beach is never to be passed up . . .
Report comment to moderator
It’s the end of another phase of my life. Hubby doesn’t think he can get enough work to get us through the year, so I need to get a real job. I haven’t had to look for work in over 20 years. I was at my last job for 19 years. Anyone know someone who needs a cable television producer who can’t work weekends, holidays or past 6pm?
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
Down there, forget the sharks, look out for the Salties (salt water crocodiles).
Keep sponging, I’ve never heard of a boogie boarder getting bit by a shark . . . come to think of it, why is that?
Report comment to moderator
The Mariannas trench is a great place. The largest underwater canyon in the world. Does Bush’s designation mean US submarines wont be able to train in the trench?
Report comment to moderator
KBells: it’s a tough time to find work. One of my colleagues decided to do some looking last week (just in case she winds up on some future lay-off list where we work now) and said the job market is grim. But I’ll be praying (if it is necessary you return o work) that just the right opening lands in your lap (with reasonable hours — my main request is always to have Sundays off, which my current employer is kind enough to give me.)
Kim: Hey, glad you enjoyed the film. I still am going to pass, although I was talking to someone who said we could go and leave early! I’ve since heard from another cousin of mine who read the book and said she just cried and cried at the end, she can’t go see the movie either.
Report comment to moderator
Adios @ #2 gives us a clue or two, but they really are not helpful. She writes:
if I’d heard this one say it I wouldn’t be old enough to remember it. There’s a clue.
Here’s another one, she was my exact height and weight in her prime. That’s helpful isn’t it?
First, your age: over 40 or under? Second, your size: Petite or Extra?
So, I will be complimentary and say you don’t remember the 70s and have not yet gotten the middle aged spread. So, I say the quote is Carol Burnett, as this sounds like something she would say. (And I don’t think she ever needed a face lift, did she?)
Report comment to moderator
Oh, well, wrong again. And Adios: I am too young to even remember her, though I was 5 or 6 when she died (another clue). Here is yet another clue: I think only Chas and Random would be old enough to remember her saying this.
Report comment to moderator
kbells: It’s tough out there! But how about starting your own production company? You must know a camera man, maybe a lighting guy and you can write. Knock on a couple of doors and see who’d like an inexpensive commercial filmed? Find an amateur actor or two, if neede. Even if the customer can’t afford to run it, you can put it up on Youtube or some of the other outlets… “Sample Spot from the Kbells Cable Ad Agency Alliance” or something like that…
Report comment to moderator
Katherine Hepburn? Or is it someone even longer ago? Give us a hint.
Report comment to moderator
I must be too young to remember then.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Peter L
I am old enough to remember her and I am 61, at least for 3+ months.
Report comment to moderator
Anybody see this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/crucifixion-church-vicar-sculpture-copnall
Imagine that, crucifixion is hard to look at even when it’s only rosin.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s how I think the college football rankings should stack up. My opinion here is worth every penny you paid for it.
1. USC
2. Utah
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida
5. Texas
6. Penn State
7. Oregon
8. Alabama
9. Ohio State
10. Oregon State
11. TCU
12. Boise State
13. Texas Tech
14. Oklahoma State
15. Mississippi
16. Virginia Tech
17. California
18. Arizona
19. Brigham Young U.
20. Georgia
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
Dr. Gregg Frazer has been participating in a political theological discussion over at my blogs, particularly “American Creation,” (http://americancreation.blogspot.com) which devoted entirely to exploring the American Founding & theology. He’s doing a good job explaining his view that the Bible in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt. The following is from his latest comment:
First, Moses did not rebel against anyone. Read Exodus 12:31-32. Moses obeyed the command of Pharaoh.
Second, David did not rebel against anyone. God removed His blessing from Saul, Saul was jealous of David, and Saul set out to kill David. David evade Saul until he was dead — then he assumed the throne for which he was anointed. David had two opportunities to kill Saul and take the throne and refused. Read I Samuel 24:11 (in which David specifically denied being part of a rebellion). And I Samuel 26:9-11.
Joshua did not rebel against anyone. He led national forces in warfare, not rebellion.
Regular readers will also note that I have not appealed simply to Romans 13. I have noted that the Bible mentions some form of the words “rebel” or “revolt” more than 100 times — all in the negative. The focus was on Romans 13 during the recent discussion because that was determined to be the focus at the beginning of the discussion.
Finally, the Proverbs passages have nothing to do with rebellion. To suggest that one could establish righteousness via means condemned by God is more than a bit strange.
Report comment to moderator
Wow – it’s already noon on the East Coast and no one has stopped by to say why they are leaving this blog. Using stock market vernacular, perhaps we’ve put in a bottom?
ADIOS – “Here’s another one, she was my exact height and weight in her prime.”
Gulp. There goes that darn blog crush of mine again…
JOEL MARK – Hang on there with those rankings, still one more game to go! (Although it’s hard to quibble with your top 5.) Grrr, why does the dang bowl season run through Jan 8th now?
Report comment to moderator
Ah, KBells Cable. I like that.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, guys!
I’m in an interesting situation here. My English teacher, the unintroducible Ms. Starkey, is having us presearch the Grapes of Wrath. Basically, we’re learning about the book before we read it. We each have a topic, and mine is Character Profiles. She said I could ask the well-read people on my favorite blog.
So…what can you guys tell me about the characters in Grapes of Wrath?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, that’s a thought, though I don’t have any seed money, I might be able to find someone who has their own equipment willing to partner up and I do like Donnaj’s KBells Cable name. But I’m not sure I will be going back into television. I may need a new direction.
Report comment to moderator
The quote has to be from Liz Taylor…
Report comment to moderator
KBells: But hey, if you formed your own TV company, you might need a news writer at some point. And who knows, I may be “available” someday.
Then you could maybe hire MIM for technical assistance and quality office cabinet making for your growing cable empire.
Just think of the possibilities!
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I agree with you. I would submit that the NT teaches that even if you are a slave, you are free in Christ, and your eternal soul is of far more importance than your “political life” on earth. We are to separate ourselves from the world, and what is more worldly than politics?! There is a difference between being an American and being a Christian, though evidently not for those who joined the Rebellion. But as you often tell us, many in the core of the rabble-rousers (i.e., your fave the “obnoxious and disliked” John Adams as well as Jefferson, to name two) were not Christians. Perhaps we owe our political freedom to their “lack of salvation.”
OT, I can’t help you, I’m embarrassed to say.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Thanks for your excellent comment. I think you get my main thesis I try to argue on this site perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
Opinionated Teen,
I will be interested in seeing what responses you get, and how long the people who respond have been out of high school. I read Grapes of Wrath in 9th grade, which is 33 years ago, and I don’t remember much of anything about the characters. About the only thing character-related I do remember is that one man is apparently portrayed as a Christ-figure – besides some kind of suffering for other people, there was one scene where the physical description had something to do with the shape of a cross (though I don’t know if I’d have noticed that if our teacher hadn’t made a point of it – it wasn’t exactly obvious).
It was hardly one of my favorite books – perhaps if I’d liked it better I’d have remembered it better. Not difficult to read, just not all that memorable. It’s not that I didn’t like Steinbeck, I just like some of his shorter works better. I remember much more of Of Mice and Men (which I read in 10th grade), where the characters are the story, much more than in Grapes of Wrath.
Report comment to moderator
DonnaJ. At one time I planned to have my own religious/sci-fi cable channel. I’ve already offered several people here a job. I might need a news writer if you could find a religious and/or sci-fi angle to the daily news
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm, religion, no problem. Sci-fi I’d have to brush up on. But ready and willing when you are.
Report comment to moderator
Joel- My only quibble, other than the remaining game, is that Utah deserves #1 after the spanking it gave Alabama.
As for the bowl season lasting until Jan 8, there is one word: money. And remember when the Super Bowl was the second Sunday in January? And the World Series was done in the middle of October or earlier? And basketball and hockey were winter diversions between baseball and football? Now there is so much overlap, that in October you have the end of baseball, the middle of football and the beginning of the other two that I hardly even care about (at least at the pro level).
Report comment to moderator
Peter L –
You can’t forget how basketball and hockey drag their seasons on too. I always thought that there was something wrong with having the Stanley Cup finals being played in June.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: It is not true that there is any rational theological (Biblical) argument against the American Revolution, or any such events. To argue differently is (to me) a rather weak point – sorry.
Historically, the Colonies had practically evolved away from England and were practically and meaningfully self-governing; when Britian sought to reassert long-relinquished long-dead authority and destroy or subvert those forms of American self-goverment (representative government), one could as well (or really better) argue that it was the ‘Christian duty’ of Americans (whatever their emotional/cultural attachment to Britian and the throne) to support the ‘Revolutionaries’, who better embodied what really worked and was working.
To argue otherwise seems to me to be specious; after all, the existing British government had ‘overthrown’ the original James II whose descendants still claimed ‘legitimate’ authority – how far back does one need to carry ‘loyalty’ to the ‘true’ government?
One could make the same argument regards the South during the Civil War – the typical southerner believed that the ‘true’ government of sovereign States had been ‘taken over’ or subverted – hence their ‘Christian duty’ lay with the Confederacy, which they soundly believed was the authorative and legitimate government. Ditto the North, with different arguments, same base reasoning.
There is (in my opinion) very little that one can say regards the Biblical ‘validity’ of such ‘choices’ (i.e. Tory or Patriot?) made by Christians.
The NT certainly informs us how we are each to live locally and immediately within the construct of the life decisions made, though, of course.
But the life decisions themselves are rarely corporate Biblically ‘judgable’ decisions – i.e. such decisions regarding as whether we immigrate to the New World in the first place or not. Or decisions as to whether we don blue or gray in 1861. Or the decision as to whether we fight as a Tory or as a Patriot in 1776. Some Christians did one thing, others did another – I do not feel that one group is able to be judged in general from a Biblical perspective.
Otherwise the thing is totally unworkable, logically and practically speaking.
Report comment to moderator
I too tended to prefer Steinbeck’s shorter works – namely The Pearl, and Travels w/ Charlie.
OT – Like Pauline, I’m 30+ years removed from reading this. I have a hard time thinking of GoW without thinking of Henry Fonda as Tom Joad, so any comments that I have on character would be polluted by Daryl Zanuck’s epic 1940 film. And I certainly wouldn’t want you to get in trouble like George Costanza did on Seinfeld. Recall that he watched the “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” video instead of reading Capote’s novel for his book club assignment!
Words that come to my mind about the Joads character are: proud, righteous, hard working, stubborn, persevering.
For some reason, the scene in the book I can most recall (other than the ending, which I *wont* give away like Kim did in post #3!) is a scene where they stop at a truck stop along their way west. Steinbeck describes the waitress turning up the gas on the coffee burner for the truckers, in hopes of getting better tips, better business from regular customers. And her offering something to the hungry young Joad kids, who had no money but would never ask for food.
Report comment to moderator
Donna, I read Marley and Me and didn’t like it, because it really seemed to me the problem was that the dog was never properly trained. Sorry, I simply would not let a dog do tens of thousands of dollars of damage to my home. That’s one traumatized, insecure dog, and also no dog is worth that. Then I read a dog-training book, in which different problem dogs had had their problems addressed on some TV show. The owners of Marley brought a new Lab with a different set of serious problems, which the trainer addressed. Then Marley’s owner was quoted as saying something like, “So if we had brought Marley to you, we wouldn’t have had a book!” and I thought, Exactly! I personally don’t want to read a book about a parent or dog owner’s failure to get authority, and the resulting problems.
Before I got Misten, I read a lot of dog books, and I saw that separation anxiety, and fear of thunder, are a couple problems collies can have (as Marley did). I trained Misten accordingly, to avoid those. She doesn’t really like thunder, but we deal with it (if she barks I make her lie down–a submissive posture that reminds her I’m in control and she can relax), and she’s never had a touch of separation anxiety because on that one, a potential problem for her breed, I did everything exactly “by the book.” (The most important thing being I don’t tell her goodbye when I leave the house, and don’t make eye contact with her when I first come home–I show leadership by coming and going as I please, without her permission, and without giving any hint that I expect she might not like it if I go. When she was a puppy, I also gave her a treat-filled ball that she got only when I left for a while, so that she had something “acceptable” to chew on. And she was crated or penned for the first few months, if I left for more than an hour or two.)
Report comment to moderator
“He’s doing a good job explaining his view that the Bible in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt.”
Blanket statements are often wrong. Here are some exceptions in which political revolt against oppressive regimes WERE sanctioned by God:
Judges 3:7-11. Othniel leads a revolt against Cushan-Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, whom God earlier allowed to subjugate the children of Israel.
Judges 3:12-30; Ehud assassinates Eglon, king of Moab who had conquered the city pf Palms and ruled over it eighteen years. After the assassination, Ehud leads Israel to victory over the Moabites.
Chapter 4: It is not certain from the text whether Jabin king of Canaan oppressed Israel through habitual skirmishes and warfare or by making them actual tributaries. Although not dispositive, it calls into question absolutist proclamations.
Judges 6: The story of Gideon. The Midianites apparently did not exercise tight day to day control, but the children of the LORD were delivered under their hand for seven years and it required an armed revolt to gain economic as well as political independence.
As far as Moses obeying the command of Pharoah, Pharoah’s original intentions and hard heart were overruled only after repeated requests and the plagues. He originally told Moses he could not take the Hebrew people and leave Egypt. Because Great Britain eventually yielded to the American colonists with treaties and compacts, are we not then also relieved of the charge of rebellion?
The issue was hotly debated by evangelicals prior to and during the War for Independence. (The US War was not properly speaking a revolution as was the French Revolution. The colonists were seeking political independence from a remote crown so that they could continue to live as the good Englishmen they were. Most British evangelical leaders argued much as Frazer does; Americans were nearly unanimous in finding Biblical precedent that supported their sense of living in “a shining city on a hill” as God’s covenantal people.
Report comment to moderator
opinionated teen,
I always was fascinated with Tom Joad, but then perhaps this is predictable.
Report comment to moderator
JM: I can understand ranking Utah ahead of Texas, but the others? UT already defeated OU on a neutral field, and what top-ranked teams have USC and Florida even played this season? Texas has played five teams ranked in the top 11.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I think you are right that arguing from the Bible alone can get you both results depending on your hermeneutic method. I can agree with your following point:
Or decisions as to whether we don blue or gray in 1861. Or the decision as to whether we fight as a Tory or as a Patriot in 1776. Some Christians did one thing, others did another….
Re the notion that the Bible actually supports the Tories, I want to show that there is strong biblical argument, using sound hermeneutic to be made. Most (or too many) evangelicals accept at face value that there is only one side; I just want to show from a strict biblical perspective it’s not at all so clear.
That there might be such divergent results doesn’t surprise me. I’ve followed (as an outsider) theological debates among orthodox Christians. Evangelicals usually begin with a certain common ground: Sola-scriptura, the Bible says X and that’s all we need. Further they will agree on various orthodox doctrines (the Bible teaches a Triune God, etc.). But after that, there is all sorts of arguing and positing incompatible notions about what “the Bible alone” really teaches on such matters. And it’s not just a matter of good hermeneutics. There is a lot of bad hermeneutics out there. But even among good hermeneuticists (and I think Dr. Frazer and his college President and minister John MacArthur are among the best as far as evangelical/fundamentalist Christians go) there are lots and lots of incompatible claims about what “the Bible alone” really teaches.
Report comment to moderator
Ken,
I think you make a good argument for the other side. Though, one thing about evangelicals/fundamentalists is I expect you to make blanket statements re what the Bible teaches. You folks are no wishy washy relativists are known for positing such non-negotiable moral absolutes.
Though there’s one claim you make that I disagree with:
Americans were nearly unanimous in finding Biblical precedent that supported their sense of living in “a shining city on a hill” as God’s covenantal people.
The American pro-revolt pulpit was infested with a-biblical Lockean doctrine (much of it posited by theological unitarians who as such aren’t even Christians as evangelicals understand the term) that looked to “reason” and “nature” and not the Bible to justify revolt. In the pulpit, the right to revolt was discovered by reason-nature, John Locke was quoted, and this “truth” was viewed as on par scripture. Then scripture was interpreted in light of these enlightenment discovers.
Jonathan Mayhew and Samuel West are probably the most notable of these unitarian New England preachers whose pro-revolt sermons were essential to getting America to revolt. But even a figure like John Witherspoon (who was an orthodox Calvinistic Christian) turned to Locke, not Calvin (or Rutherford or Knox) to justify revolt.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: Well, the disagreement between (say) you and me would be more on the issue of whether the American government was ‘founded on Christian principles’ or something along those lines. I think.
There is of course a good bit of variance in interpretation on that phrase ‘founded on Christian principles’ but I believe that it is inarguable that because Christianity is bedrocked in the ‘revolutionary’ idea that ‘all men and women are exactly equal – and precious – in the sight of God’ (but nevertheless free agents with restrictions, I am not much of a Calvinist), it is therefore a small and logical step to imagine a government based on the idea (however imperfectly realized) that all are politically equal by divine right .
That sort of idea (equality of humanity) is certainly not extendable from a monarchy or an aristocracy or a despotism, benevolent or otherwise, which by their very nature elevates some men above others in terms of intrinsic ‘worth’ in the scheme of things.
That there is some pagan (i.e. Greek, Tuetonic, etc.) and classical humanist influence as well in the principles of the Founders is obviously true, however. As pointed out, Jefferson was not a Christian by any definition (and he was a lousy human being, by the way, whatever his claim to greatness in terms of political expression).
But I have always been puzzled by your insistence (as I understand you) that somehow Christianity is antithetical to the principles on which this country was founded on. It seems rather strongly the exact opposite, based on my understanding of un varnished history – and of Christianity.
Regards Christians in any conflict: I suppose one could argue that a good Christian will always be a pacifist, no matter what the stakes. However I do not believe is theologically right, although I have great respect for truly consistent Christian pacifists. Or I suppose of truly consistent pacifists of any stripe, since they are true to an admirable if unworkable conviction.
Report comment to moderator
“…the Bible in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt.”
This Dr. Frazer, if Jon Rowe is representing his view faithfully, is being far too dogmatic. There is enough in the Bible to give any Christian pause when considering a rebellious stance. But the Bible also affirms our freedom of conscience on such matters in also considering the practical context under various circumstances. Christians live on principle and conviction, not on legalistic dos and don’ts.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer uderwent a huge struggle of conscience as a pacifist and ended us deciding to support a plot to kill Hitler. That was rebellion and he is widely admired for that stance by left and right today. It’s just not as simple as Frazer (according to Jon Rowe) seems to think.
I also appreciate Ken’s comments in reply. I would add that Jesus was also perceived as a rebellious Jew. His violent act of cleansing the temple (in a theocratic society, the temple represented as much a civic as it was a relious context) was a rebellious and uncivil act.
Peter and other apostles were strictly told by the authorities not to teach in Jesus’ name. Yet, they filled Jerusalem with their teachings. When called on this, Peter replied rebelliously; “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29).
Report comment to moderator
Believing strongly in moral absolutes does not relegate one to believe in legalistic moral lists of dos and don’ts (specific mandates and prohibitions). Moral principle is powerful but not necessarily rigid for all specific circumstances. For Christians, the entire law is fulfilled in the mandate to love as Christ loved us. And Christ’s love was often tough love. Walking in faith does not mean we are always right, but it also does not mean that there is only one track to follow in faith.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t seen a post from Chas for awhile. Did I miss something?
Report comment to moderator
If I come across as arguing “antithetical” it’s probably because I stress certain concepts (like the fact that a strong biblical case can be made that the American Revolution was sinful). Rather, 1) I think there was *tension* between the teachings of orthodox Christianity and the ideals of the American Founding. And 2) Christianity, did, as you note, play an important role in giving America its Founding ideals. However, it did so while being intermixed with other non-Christian sources in an ideological synthesis (i.e., pagan Greco-Roman, Enlightenment, Whig). Whether the end product was authentically “Christian” is a matter of debate. That’s what I want folks to see. Not a clear “Christian Founding” on biblical principles.
A number of analogies are useful. My next post at my blogs I’m going to discuss how Darwin’s evolution is a near perfect analogy to Locke’s idea of “the state of nature” which was central to the American Founding. Some biblical Christians argue evolution is incompatible with the bible (it’s “anti-biblical”) some argue for the compatibility between the two. But even they, I don’t believe, argue Darwin’s theory COMES from the Bible. Hence it would be “a-biblical” not necessarily anti-biblical.
Much of what the Founders believed in and did is along these lines, some of it biblical. But much of anti-biblical at worst, or “a-biblical” not necessarily anti-biblical at best.
I have a post on George Washington and how his theological views were influenced by the pagan philosophers Seneca that also I think illustrates this dynamic. This is Wiki — I know not the most reliable source, but a good place to go for “surface” knowledge, later to be confirmed by real sources — notes about Seneca:
The early Christian Church was very favorably disposed towards Seneca and his writings, and the church leader Tertullian called him “our Seneca”.[12]
Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously has Nero as a witness to his suicide) believed that Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul, and early humanists regarded his fatal bath as a kind of disguised baptism. However, this seems unlikely as Seneca always professed to be Stoic.
Dante placed Seneca in the First Circle of Hell, or Limbo, a place of perfect natural happiness where good non-Christians like the ancient philosophers had to stay for eternity, due to their lack of the justifying grace (given only by Christ) required to go to heaven.
So the question is how compatible are the teachings of the “noble pagans” Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca with the Bible and orthodox Christianity? How biblical is Dante’s view of Hell with the pagan philosophers going to some benign place of separation from God. I think America’s Founders like Washington saw themselves as revived noble pagans (they certain like to adopt the surnames of such characters from antiquity).
That’s what this dynamic is all about, as I have discovered it. It’s not a clear case of a “Christian Founding.” But the compatibility with Christianity is a matter of debate with good arguments that can be made from both sides.
Report comment to moderator
The American pro-revolt pulpit was far more diverse than Jon Rowe seems to think. People came at this question from all sides and some from all sides went in different directions with their conclusions. Some were led by Lockean notions and many were not. Unitarianism was only in its remote initial stages at the time and was not a big factor among the people.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Dr. Frazer has explained why Acts 5:29 gives no permission for revolt or rebellion. That’s what good hermeneutics (of the orthodox variety) does. It demonstrates why certain passages that may seem to contradict one another do not. After all, as believers in the Bible as infallible, you believe it contains no contradiction.
As he wrote here:
The Bible mentions some form of the words “rebel” or “revolt” more than 100 times – and all in the negative. In most cases, the condemnation could hardly be stronger (e.g. I Samuel 15:23).
Finally, to say that no governing authority may be resisted (rebelled against) is not to say that no governing authority may be disobeyed under one certain circumstance. Scripture is clear (Acts 4:19-20 & 5:29) that individual commands which require disobedience to God must be disobeyed – but we must still remain in subjection (that is, we still recognize the government’s authority), which usually means taking the punishment (as per the examples of Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, and the apostles themselves). Resistance denies and strikes at the principle of authority; disobedience in pursuit of obedience to God is directed at a specific command/law and does not challenge the legitimacy of the authority behind it. The earthly authority’s command is “trumped” by a higher authority’s command – but the earthly authority does not forfeit its legitimacy. [just as a state law cannot violate a national law, but a state government does not lose its legitimacy and authority by passing such a law]
Gregg
And here:
The real problem, though, is in conflating disobedience and rebellion. In one paragraph, you’re talking about a basis for disobedience and in the next, you’re talking about rebellion. Do you not recognize a difference between them? I agree, as I said above, that Christians should not OBEY an order which commands disobedience to God (Acts 5:29), but that does not legitimize REBELLION — whether led by a lower magistrate or not.
Throughout Scripture, the same principle can be seen: we must obey the government unless/until it commands disobedience to God; then, we must disobey, but REMAIN IN SUBJECTION (that is, still recognize the government’s authority) — usually by taking the punishment. That’s why Shadrach & his pals went into the fiery furnace and Daniel went into the lion’s den and why Paul wrote Romans 13 from jail! There are, however, NO examples of rebellion approved by God in Scripture.
Dr. Frazer is preoccupied at the moment and has for the short term ended his blog dialog. If we stick around long enough he could come back to answer these very questions here. But re Ken’s assertions that the Bible promotes rebellion, I’m sure Dr. Frazer can answer/show you why the Bible actual teaches those examples really don’t support rebellion at all.
On a personal note, because I don’t believe the Bible is infallible I’m not wedded to a particular position. As I noted I see Christians all the time differing on “the Bible says X,” v. “no the Bible doesn’t say X.” What I look for is good knowledge of the Bible and a logically airtight hermeneutics argument. And Frazer certainly has both. Though I have seen some folks well argue that the Bible permits resisting government in certain circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
KI: I think Chas was headed for Florida when we last heard from him.
Report comment to moderator
#44, Jon Rowe wrote; “I think there was *tension* between the teachings of orthodox Christianity and the ideals of the American Founding.”
I agree and it was a creative tension. There is also a “tension” between the teachings of Christian faith and ANY political, social or aesthetic position, left or right or inbetween. The tension remains because, as sinful creatures, we continueally apply our ideas and ideals in mistaken and flawed ways, no matter how idealistically we hold them.
My problem with Jon Rowe in the past has been that I do not feel he understands what orthodox Christianity is in the first place. He often tries to define “orthodox” on his own terms of understanding and he presumes to decide who is “in” or out for now and eternity, including figures he never knew personally at all. He presumes to judge their faith as if faith can be disected in a laboratory of pure history. He does not seem to realize that God is the only true judge of anyone’s authenticity as a Christian. From past conversations, I think he seems to see orthodox Christianity as some stereotypical system of obligatory positions and policies based on proof-texted verses of Jon Rowe’s own choosing. He does not seem to grasp that it begins with genuine repentance and proceeds with trust in God for His forgiveness of our sin through the shed blood of Jesus, leading to a personal relationship that often looks different on the surface in one follower compared to another.
I hasten to clarify that the above is only my take based on past conversations with Jon Rowe. Let all assess for themselves.
But our Founders were a mixed bag. It is also important to state that our true Founders were not just those who crafted political documents or fought military battles. There is so much more to America than her politics, battles and laws. Our Founders also include those who forged the colonial context and the Christian culture out of which our country emerged. It includes educators and linguests like Noah Webster, preachers and college presidents like Jonathan Edwards and Timothy Dwight, and so on.
But regardless of their intellectual diversity, our Founders revered our Christian heritage in ways that made them totally antithetical to the revolutionaries of the French Revolution, most of whom were highly anti-clerical and anti-Christian.
Our Founders founded a Christian nation with a free and secular government. Many “noble pagans” were often respected by our more intellectual Founders, but rarely on the same level as the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
As you represent Dr. Frazer, Jon Rowe, his mistake is in thinking that the role of Acts 5:29 is to give us “permission” or not in the first place regarding serious specific decisions in the outworking of our lives. You present Dr. Frazer as a shallow thinker.
Rather, Acts 5:29 sets for a principle to follow, NOT permission granted or withheld regarding revolt or rebellion.
Again, you show a misunderstanding of what good hermeneutics (of the orthodox variety) even is.
Think on principle, not on isolated proof-texts.
Report comment to moderator
I would disagree with your word choice for the word ‘fact’ in the following statement: “the fact that a strong biblical case can be made that the American Revolution was sinful.” That is an opinion, and not a very sound one, at that.
That is like stating that ‘it is a fact that a strong biblical case can be made that the large-scale Irish immigration to America in the 1800’s was sinful’.
Also I LIKE your ‘I think’ in the following statement:
“I think America’s Founders like Washington saw themselves as revived noble pagans (they certain like to adopt the surnames of such characters from antiquity)”.
I like it, because it is not quite so declarative. Because I exactly ‘think not’ about the same issue, with equal veracity.
Based on what I have read about George Washington, the assertation that he saw himself as a ‘revived noble pagan’ is a reach into complete fabrication. Washington was a reticent and intensely private man. Reticence on things spiritual does not disagreement. However, what statements he DID actually make, strongly support the notion that he considered himself fully a Christian. That he displayed non-conformist behavior means nothing at all (i.e. in not participating in communion in periods of his life when he was pretty distracted with other things).
So, if I judged my grandfather on the same basis, I would have to conclude that he was a confirmed pagan – Celtic, as a matter of fact; since all the names he gave his kids were of Celtic origin. Decidely suspicious.
And he did not talk that much about his beliefs, which is really bothersome, come to think of it; I had always thought because he was largely too busy trying to feed a large number of mouths, etc.
But maybe he actually secretly longed to be a Druid.
He did have a long white beard, come to think of it.
And he liked trees, especially oak trees.
Report comment to moderator
KI,
Yep, Chas is in Florida for the next several days.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Perhaps the term “pagan” is too loaded. Yet, it’s a provocative word; and if I do write a book on this (I certainly have the knowledge) I might title it something like “Noble Pagans: America’s Founding Heretics.” I am not going to write a book that does not sell or make it into the book stores. So a catchy, provocative title is a must. When I say the word “pagan” Druids might come to mind. But that’s NOT what I mean. Rather I mean figures from antiquity like Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca and Cato the Younger. Indeed, there is MUCH evidence in the primary sources that Washington saw himself as a new version of Seneca, Cato or Cinninatus. So my question to you is what do we term such figures if not “pagan”? I tried to qualify pagan with “noble” to make the difference between that system and Druidism.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. I forgot to mention “Publius” which was the pagan surname that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay choose for the Federalist Papers. Note, they didn’t choose Hebraic or biblical surnames but classical pagan ones.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Your comments so misrepresent my views that they are practically not worth responding to. You know from debating me over and over and over again, that my qualification for what is an orthodox Christian has nothing to do with my personal subjective opinions but rather is an objective standard, out in the historic Christian creeds, notably the Nicene Creed.
Report comment to moderator
[Dr. Frazer's] mistake is in thinking that the role of Acts 5:29 is to give us “permission” or not in the first place regarding serious specific decisions in the outworking of our lives. You present Dr. Frazer as a shallow thinker.
Rather, Acts 5:29 sets for a principle to follow, NOT permission granted or withheld regarding revolt or rebellion.
Again, you show a misunderstanding of what good hermeneutics (of the orthodox variety) even is.
Think on principle, not on isolated proof-texts.
Frazer makes no mistake; you do. And I’ll let the readers follow the links to the primary sources of the original debate to see who is the isolated proof texting shallow thinker and poor hermeneuticist, because that’s exactly how you are coming across.
If you look at the entire debate, you’ll see Frazer is dealing with multiple biblical passages concerning the principle of rebellion and revolt. As far as I know, in his personal studies have dealt with ALL of them and can show as a matter of principle why the Bible forbids revolt or rebellion in every instance.
Isolated proof texting is problematic because other verses and chapters may shed light on why an isolated proof text may not mean what you think it means. This is exactly what YOU Joel did when you cited Acts 5:29 erroneously thinking it demonstrates a biblical case for rebellion, when it does not.
Given that other passages of the Bible (i.e., Romans 13, Titus iii, and many others) command both submission and obedience to government, your conclusion leads to a biblical contradiction. And for an orthodox theologian who believes the Bible is infallible and without contradiction, it is poor hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics, from an orthodox perspective, explains why these passages aren’t in fact contradictory by explaining the biblical principles that connect the versus and chapters together in compatible, consistent ways. And this is exactly what Dr. Frazer did when he summarized the Bible as teaching the following:
The Bible mentions some form of the words “rebel” or “revolt” more than 100 times – and all in the negative. In most cases, the condemnation could hardly be stronger (e.g. I Samuel 15:23).
Finally, to say that no governing authority may be resisted (rebelled against) is not to say that no governing authority may be disobeyed under one certain circumstance. Scripture is clear (Acts 4:19-20 & 5:29) that individual commands which require disobedience to God must be disobeyed – but we must still remain in subjection (that is, we still recognize the government’s authority), which usually means taking the punishment (as per the examples of Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, and the apostles themselves). Resistance denies and strikes at the principle of authority; disobedience in pursuit of obedience to God is directed at a specific command/law and does not challenge the legitimacy of the authority behind it.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: You should write a book; it would be interesting, even if I disagreed with it on some major points. Your posts here have been good from the standpoint of clarifying (sharpening and refining) my own views and thoughts.
By all means though, you must make the title (and cover) provocative, as you say, in order to sell in modern day America.
To be really successful these days, perhaps you need to skip the book (reading is so ‘yesterday’ in these progressive days); instead go straight to the video game release. Somehow bring in exploding cars and scantily clad women (heck, unclad works these days) and maybe alien spaceships.
This will be challenging, given the subject. Somehow George Washington and John Adams, et al, do not readily or naturally lend themselves to these sorts of things.
I should note that I also take offense from your commment that implied that Druids were necessarily NOT noble. They probably were very noble; remember the testimony of Ceasar (from which Druids get a bad historical rap) is hardly objective. The Romans were bloody butchers, largely.
After all, my distant ancestors almost certainly included some Druids.
Which possibly explains why I like to snooze on summer days under the shade of large oak trees on the back side of the barn (away from where my wife can see me) when I am supposed to be working.
It is in my DNA; it is hence not my fault. But I don’t see what is so unnoble about it, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: That is interesting about Senaca; I had not read that he might have converted to Christianity (or some tradition existed regarding that possibility).
I guess watching Nero go nuclear might have been too much for even a thorough-going Stoic like Seneca.
I have had students occassionally myself who just about drove me to move to California, join a commune, stop bathing, and study my navel.
Providing I still have one, that is.
It is a great deal of trouble to verify that sort of thing when one reaches my age and physical condition.
It is not something that you young people would even be able to sympathize with, remotely.
Report comment to moderator
Drill. Heh. Thanks. Love your sense of humor.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Regarding the notion that the American Revolution was sinful, this can be said of nearly any major human endeavor or movement. Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer admitted that attempting to kill Hilter was sinful, but he also believed that not to do so was even more sinful. We are inescapably destined, if we are honest, to repent.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Frazer makes no mistake; you do.”
Jon, I stated that Frazer made a mistake ONLY if your representation of him was fair. If so, then I disagree with him and with you. I do not think you have fairly grasped the extent to which orthodox Christians act on princip0le rather than on proof-texts or on permission granted (or not) by specific isolated texts. It’s my impression. You are free to disagree.
There is no need to follow links backwards. I am referring to your comments on this thread.
I realize that Frazer is dealing with multiple passages. After all, I used the word “texts” or “proof-texts” (plural).
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
That’s a good point. If I believed in Romans 13 as the infallible Word of God, I might still not submit to Hitler, and just ask God for forgiveness for the sin of resisting Hitler’s government. The same could be said of the dilemma of believing torturing prisoners always to be wrong, but needing to do it because of the ticking time bomb scenario. The need to do wrong doesn’t destroy the underlying point that the actions are, in principle, wrong. And in this case the idea is the Bible holds rebelling against government to be in principle a sin.
Report comment to moderator
In 61 I was referring to Joel’s post in 59, not 60.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Donna and Cameron
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “This is exactly what YOU Joel did when you cited Acts 5:29 erroneously thinking it demonstrates a biblical case for rebellion, when it does not.”
Jon, you completely misunderstood my point. I did no such thing and you know it. I cited Acts 5:29 to introduce a principle to take into consideration as we face tough practical decisions in life. I did not intend to present it as a proof-text for a biblical case for rebellion, and you know it. In fact, I acknowledged that any Christian considering rebellion has great cause for pause.
But I stand by my criticism that you (or Dr. Frazer) claim that the Bible (in your words) “…in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt.”
That’s a blanket dogmatic statement with which I disagree. But you are dead wrong in your twist regarding how I cited Acts 5:29.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rwoe writes; “The Bible mentions some form of the words ‘rebel’ or ‘revolt’ more than 100 times – and all in the negative.”
Each of these passages has a context of its own and cannot necessarily be carried over as proof-texts into Bonhoeffer’s case or the case of a Christian in 1776.
Report comment to moderator
Re 60 as I noted before I’ve followed debates among Christians for a long period of time and constantly see, even among good theologians with sound hermeneutics (keeping in mind not all theologians are good and engage in sound hermeneutics) orthodox Christians disagree on “the Bible says X,” v. “no the Bible doesn’t say X.” Orthodox theologians dispute all five points of Calvinism on these grounds.
But in terms of knowledge of the Bible, intelligence, being logically learned and engaging in good hermeneutics, Dr. Frazer, like his boss John MacArthur (are as far as I see it) as good as it gets.
And I say this as someone who on personal matters, absolutely vehemently disagrees with lifestyle and worldview issues. They are both literal six day, young earth creationists. And some of the stuff Dr. MacArthur has said about the Papacy I have a hard time listening to the whole way through because it is so harsh. Yet, it absolutely accords with longstanding tradition of orthodox Protestant Christianity that believes the Bible alone as the infallible Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Should have said: “And I say this as someone who on personal matters, absolutely vehemently disagrees with [them on] lifestyle and worldview issues.”
Report comment to moderator
I did not intend to present it as a proof-text for a biblical case for rebellion, and you know it. In fact, I acknowledged that any Christian considering rebellion has great cause for pause.
No Joel, I don’t know it. If you think Christians must pause before considering rebellion, great. But I think my interpretation of your words was reasonable. As you wrote.
When called on this, Peter replied rebelliously; “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). [Bold mine.]
Report comment to moderator
#30, Peter L,
I respect your quibble, but I ranked USC over Utah because I not only think USC had a tougher schedule over all, but they also had far greater margins of victory throughout the season (for the most part), than did Utah. But Utah is a sentimental favorite. They deserve more respect than they got.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, you misrepresented my hermeneutic (and my point) with regard to Acts 5:29. If you didn’t know it, then it was an honest mistake on your part.
In my view, Acts 5:29 presents a principle that I believe makes it inappropriate to say in such absolute terms (as you wrote): “…the Bible in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt.”
Either you overstated Frazer’s position, or I disagree with both of you. But I was not using Acts 5:29 necessarily as a proof-text for political revolt (such decisions are too complex for that, ethically); only as an example in principle that renders your previous statement too extreme.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Well, I don’t understand the logical or scriptural basis for the idea that the American Revolution was ’sinful’ (or ‘not sinful’ for all that). Sin, as I understand it, is highly individualized; personalized. It is almost impossibly problematic to try to corporately assign the quality of ’sinfulness’ to complex historic events like the American Revolution.
As a BAD example: Even in Germany in the times of the Nazis, I am not sure that I would say that all who supported the Nazis were ’sinful’ – some may have been ignorant or mislead. (But once evil is discovered, it is sinful to keep supporting it, that is for sure; which is why I cannot abide a self-professed ‘Christian’ who ’supports’ abortion, once they are made aware of what it actually is).
So, yes, if someone decided to fight as a Patriot in 1776 because of sinful reasons (maybe because they could thereby evict their Tory-leaning neighbors and get their oxen), that would be sinful. Or vice versa.
But most such decisions were made probably in keeping with consciences as best as people could with the knowledge/background/inclinations they had. For instance, defending ones home from foreign invasion is not (in my opinion) ’sinful’. Or determining after reflection that one’s oath of loyalty to the crown trumps the local inclination to self-goverment is not (in my opinion) ’sinful’.
How people actually lived out whatever path they took (their actions subsequent to that point) is a different matter. But I think their faith might have informed their decision, either way. After all, maybe God had a reason for some (many?) Tories to be Christians; everyone has their own story between them (as an individual) and God; we know very few of these stories, actually. But His purposes are greater than we realize, or can imagine.
But anyway ultimately sin encompasses individual offense between God and a man, I THINK. Trying to ascribe the quality of ’sinfulness’ to the American Revolution is not supportable, in my opinion.
I think that maybe Biblically one can get the idea that entire nations sin in their actions – but those actions are clearly sinful personally as well; like Canannites supporting, enabling child sacrifices. Assuming fancifully for a moment that some Canannites actually actively fought against such practices; they would not share that particular ‘national’ sin, anyway. In my opinion.
Personally, I believe that America was indeed founded as a Christian nation on bedrock Christian principles – in terms of ‘equality’ and ’self-goverment’, both of which are inarguably Christian in conception.
These worthy things (equality, self-government) also appear in other forums as Jon Rowe points out; pagan and classical and humanist. It is no surprise to me that truth (or particulary partial truth) crops up in many disparate forums, given Romans Chapter 1.
The various streams of thought that merged and informed the Founders were from multiple sources, of course, but whatever good emerged from that process came from God.
Ultimately, everything that is good does come from God, I believe.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I’m going to let your first sentence/paragraph go and leave it at that.
However re your second: In my view, Acts 5:29 presents a principle that I believe makes it inappropriate to say in such absolute terms (as you wrote): “…the Bible in no uncertain terms and WITHOUT EXCEPTION forbids political revolt.”
Dr. Frazer has already explained how Acts 5:29 deals with disobeying government when it might command you to sin (obviously then, obey God and not man) but does not provide an exception to the biblical rule that political revolt is, without exception, forbidden.
Obey God, but when Caeser comes to arrest you for disobeying him, accept the legitimacy of his rule, submit to it and accept the legality and validity of Caeser’s punishment even if it means being thrown to the lions or in Jesus’ case, crucified.
And of course, if it’s a nicer legal system using every thing that it (that is the POSITIVE legal system) has in your favor.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, should have read:
And of course, if it’s a nicer legal system use everything that it (that is the POSITIVE legal system) has to offer [criminal defense attorney's, appeals] in your favor.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think Jesus taught that the revolution was to take place on the political level, but rather within ourselves.
The human nature that we all have is the same human nature the colonists had. I don’t think any of them — the organizers or the average joe who signed on to the Revolution — were asking “what would Jesus do.” Did they learn the concept of freedom from Christ? Yes. But they didn’t revolt because they were Christians. They saw their own hard work being sent back to the Crown and they wanted to have the fruits of their labor for themselves. That’s basic self-interest. If you read the Constitution, other than the First Amendment, where do you see anything about religion? You don’t. Not only the Founders, but the people who voted to ratify the Constitution were more than capable of separating church and state, but they never intended that the church would play no part in their lives. Quite the contrary. They didn’t worship government the way so many do today. If you remember, the Constitution almost didn’t pass and wouldn’t have without the freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights. Why? Because those who insisted on the Bill of Rights knew how sleazy governments could be. When you read the two religion clauses of First Amendment, it is clear that no one wanted the government anywhere near religion. They didn’t want a national church and they didn’t want to be told what to believe. But mostly, they didn’t want the government corrupting the church because their faith meant so much to them. It was hands off entirely. The balance of the Bill of Rights isn’t about Christianity either. It was to make clear what they thought of government abuses. They did not trust government and went out of their way to prevent the government from getting too much power.
Does that mean that Christianity is not in the founding of this country? No! The Constitution itself is just a set of operating rules. Christianity was certainly found in how those operating rules were applied back in the day. I would say that the US was founded as a Christian nation in that sense, because it was how Christian ideals and principles were applied in the legislature day to day that made this nation great. As more and more relativity is applied, the country has become weaker. The country is, after all, its people, and as the people have fallen away from the Truth, so too, has the country fallen into weakness. What really divides us is how we think of right and wrong. Americans used to be of one mind on that. No more. And the more we depart from the Christian moral underpinnings which were in the hearts of the early Americans, we change the very nature of the American experiment. Back in the day, people didn’t worship the government. Today they do. As Christians we understand the meaning of the words “thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Too many Americans do not understand the consequences of violating that commandment. That will be our undoing as a nation.
Report comment to moderator
And JonRowe, I like that title.
Report comment to moderator
A new representative named Jason Chaffetz from Utah will be living in his congressional office, saving his family about $1500 a month in rent. He says he will vote with the same fiscal restraint. Now there’s a politician who should go some place!
Report comment to moderator
From an article at Foxnews.com about five ways the world may end:
“How many ways can the world end? We can think of at least five.
“But before we get into detail, let’s dismiss two things that won’t cause the demise of the planet.
“Global warming is bad for people who live in low-lying coastal areas and at the edges of deserts, but the truth is that Earth been much warmer throughout most of the past 500 million years, and life did just fine.”
Well, there you have it on global warming…
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Well said.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!