RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Convert: Obama should speak up for oppressed Christians
President Obama’s soft strategy with the Muslim world is hurting oppressed Christians in the area, said Sabatina James, a Muslim-turned-Christian convert, to the Christian Post.
James is currently living under police protection in an undisclosed location in Europe due to death threats she received after converting to Christianity. The granddaughter of a mullah in Islamic Pakistan, James has become an outspoken voice for oppressed Christians after her book, My Fight for Faith and Freedom, became a bestseller in Germany.
James took offense to the president’s Cairo speech last June for failing to stand up for the persecuted Christians in the countries.
James says the United States and Western nations need to realize that the strategy of dialogue with Muslim countries is not working. Dialogue can only be accomplished when two parties agree to listen to one another. But the West believes it’s in a dialogue when it is actually a monologue, she contends.
“They are building the mosques and allowing the Muslims to do whatever they want in Europe but what about the Christians? The Muslim countries are not doing anything to help the Christians there,” she says. “So this is not dialogue and this is not helpful.”
The Pakistani convert urges President Obama to say that the United States wants to have a dialogue with Islamic countries but point out that if Muslims are allowed to build mosques in America then Christians should be allowed to build churches and live in safety in Muslim countries.
“But he didn’t say a word about it [during the Cairo speech],” James points out. “And that is what I hate about politics. They don’t care about the real things that are going on with human rights.”
Last week, the U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom released its annual report which stated that the Obama administration rarely mentioned religious freedom and should pay more attention to the issue.
James believes that Obama has the power in his hands to help oppressed Christians and should use his influence not just to mollify relations with Muslim countries, but also to protect Christians.
“I am one of them. I am one of the converts. I am myself living under police protection,” James says. “I have a lot of contacts with converts, people who have left Islam and converted to Christianity. They all would say, ‘You know, nobody speaks for us.’”
back to top48 Comments to “Convert: Obama should speak up for oppressed Christians”
We must remember to pray for these fellow believers daily.
Report comment to moderator
This does not shock me. Obama was raised in a religious group lead by Mr. wright.
Report comment to moderator
The only religious “freedom” that the Marxist in the White House believes in is the freedom of the god called government to rule and reign on this earth. He cannot speak about religious freedom because he is too worried that he will make his handlers upset – the Joel Rogers’ and George Soros’ of this world who control Obama like a puppet.
Report comment to moderator
He has no influence with Castro in Cuba, so BHO is content to speak about human rights abuses there; namely Dr Carlos Biscet.
The areas where he does have influence he declines to use it.
Oddly enough, a kook on the radio said the big BP oil rig disaster was triggered by North Korean suicide submarine commandos who were launched from Havana!
I woulda thought the blogs would be burning up over the latest revelations about BP, Transoceanic Oil drillers etc. Red Adair or some such oil fighter firm told the Coast guard not to use water cannons on the oil rig. The CG ignored Red and now look what appened!
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an idea: if you “liberate” a muslim country but then allow for a constitution to be drafted which makes Religious Freedom a crime, have you really liberated anyone anywhere??
Report comment to moderator
“James believes that Obama has the power in his hands to help oppressed Christians and should use his influence not just to mollify relations with Muslim countries, but also to protect Christians.”
Don’t hold your breath, my dear….
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
I’ve wondered that same thing, over and over again. In the end, Iraq is just going to slide right back where it came from…
Report comment to moderator
Iraq would, in many ways, be lucky to slide back where it came from. Under the Ba’ath party, which counts a significant number of Christian Arabs among its founding members, Iraq was much more secular than it is today. Under the Ba’ath party, women, atheists, and minority religions, all had protections that simply don’t exist today.
Report comment to moderator
Under the Ba’ath party, women, atheists, and minority religions, all had protections that simply don’t exist today.
–
kwatson you mean like the rape room that were open under the Ba’ath party?
You mean like the killing that took place under the Ba’ath party?
do you want to change this statement?
“Iraq would, in many ways, be lucky to slide back where it came from. Under the Ba’ath party”
Report comment to moderator
This is cynical, but you have to give Obama credit for pursuing the best interests of Americans before those of foreign converts. This is, of course, the logic used by hawks on the right to justify any collateral damage that might result from pro-American military activity.
They should support Obama if he is, in fact, throwing foreign Christians under the bus in order to improve relations with Muslim nations.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for setting the record straight, SAWGUNNER. Clearly, Obama sabotaged the oil rig to take over the planet. You just know it in your gut. Since he’s gotten rid of our nuclear weapons (only the terrorists now have them) Obama must resort to other methods of destruction. Ultimately, he’ll fly AF1 into Focus on the Family.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #11.
There’s not much I wouldnt put past the legendary USA-haters who have ruled Pyongyang and Havana for all these years, but the Nork suicide sub commandos sounds more like Alex Jones or George Nouri/Art Bell.
As for defending the rights of converts, we should first off start with youth in this country whose muslim parents (mainly padre) want to kill any child who embraces a non-muslim religion. One thinks of the 17 year old who ran off to Florida in fear of an honor killing.
Her last name was Bari.
Again, let’s look at what our govt here is doing to defend converts within our borders
And then let’s go after muslim men who abduct their American born kids to “friendly” countries who refuse to permit the wife visitation!
Report comment to moderator
If you liberate a Muslim country. It will eventually elect a Caliphate and install shirah law. They’re obliged to do that.
Democracy, as we understand it, is a foreigh concept to Islam.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, you are unjustly mocking Sawgunner #5, since it was under Bush that the Iraqi constitution established a state church, namely the religion of terror. The day the Iraqi constitution was ratified was the end of the mission entitled Iraqi Freedom.
Sabatina James hit the nail on the head when she said the West was in a monologue with itself. Muslim fanatics could care less about religious freedom and are content to let the West satisfy its inner guilt with acts of tolerance. This just makes the terrorists job easier.
America is no longer a beacon for religious freedom. Left wing progressives are attacking Christianity from within and without. The First Amendment has been so twisted, that it means precisely the opposite of what it says. And the West finds every excuse it can to applaud and welcome the religion of terror.
Report comment to moderator
#13: And yet we see relatively few majority-Muslim states operating under full Sharia law and led by a Caliph. We have states like Turkey which, in 1998, abolished a political party (Refah) on the grounds that the “rules of sharia”, which Refah espoused, were “incomplatible with the democratic regime”.
#14: “are content to let the West satisfy its inner guilt with acts of tolerance. This just makes the terrorists job easier.”
No, acts of unnecessary intolerance and various military actions make terrorist recruiters’ jobs easier. To the extent that Obama (or, really, the United States) does something the “Muslim man on the street” approves of, it makes it harder to recruit him as an anti-U.S. guerilla.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the secret, guys!
We need to join anti-U.S. guerilla terrorist cells! Then Obama will have to appease us!
Report comment to moderator
#15 Buddy “To the extent that Obama (or, really, the United States) does something the “Muslim man on the street” approves of, it makes it harder to recruit him as an anti-U.S. guerilla.
Well, if America’s foreign policy is to make Muslims happy, then let’s behead Christians and Jews as Muhammad commanded. Let’s dress women in Burkas and beat them. Almost no Muslims objected to Daniel Pearl’s beheading.
Promoting religious freedom would not make Muslims happy generally. So according to you then, America should abandon religious freedom if Muslims say no? Who is running this country anyway, Osama or Obama?
Report comment to moderator
#17: Reading comprehension: look into it. Where did I say that U.S. foreign policy should be based around doing things the Muslim “man on the street” approves of?
My ONLY point was to refute your claim: “let the West satisfy its inner guilt with acts of tolerance; this just makes the terrorists job easier”
Doing X may be the WRONG thing to do. But if X is approved of by the Muslim man-on-the-street, then it necessarily makes terrorist recruitment more difficult.
Report comment to moderator
#18 So you are saying the US is to do things that the Muslim “man on the street” approves of, to reduce recruitment, but to not make it US policy?
Um, OK. You latched onto an insignificant point to avoid the actual point. So then, what should US policy be regarding religious freedom? What if it makes Muslims mad?
In other words, shouldn’t America do what is right even if Muslims don’t like it? Why should Obama throw religious freedom under the bus in order to make Muslim’s like us?
Well, the non-policy policy is not working. America is not safer. During Obama’s first year and a half, there have been more terrorist threats on American soil than in all of Bush’s eight years. (The secret is to call them man made disasters, because fewer Muslims are offended.)
The only way to with this war is to fight ideology with ideology. I would have Obama go toe-to-toe with respected Imams and ask them to defend their actions ideologically. Even if he loses the debate, maybe the world will finally see that these people are not after peace. They don’t care how much love you give them. A policy of hugs or unilateral disarmament will not solve anything.
Report comment to moderator
The only way to win this ideological war is to fight ideology with ideology, not with guns. Obama needs to gain the ideological high ground, but he’ll never do it by embracing the religion of terror.
Report comment to moderator
#19: “So you are saying the US is to do things that the Muslim “man on the street” approves of, to reduce recruitment, but to not make it US policy?”
Dude. Read what I wrote. I didn’t advocate any particular action on the part of the United States. What I said was this:
“To the extent that Obama … does something the “Muslim man on the street” approves of, it makes it harder to recruit him as an anti-U.S. guerilla.”
That’s it. You took that and ran with it, assuming I was advocating the U.S. adopt policies that would find approval among Muslims abroad.
Report comment to moderator
XION #12 — take it back, you’re wrong.
1. Mocking a person would be against the rules. SAWGUNNER the person is covered in righteousness. The things posted under the pseudonym are bonkers. Don’t even bother: reports to the moderator don’t touch me.
2. Justice demanded some recognition of SAWGUNNER’s apparently unreported and unsourced accusation. What is this, a kangaroo court where wingers can libel at will? If the ATF caused Waco, the CG caused the oil spill? Duh. Of course! Any Evangelical can see that.
Report comment to moderator
#21 OK, let me try again. You don’t advocate anything regarding the United States. But if Obama, the President of the country not to be named happens to do something unofficial which a Muslim man on the street somewhere just happens to approve of, then it might benefit the country not to be named in that he might not be recruited as an anti-some-country guerrilla. Right! Got it!
Let the record show that you are still avoiding all of the main points. Care to comment on what US policy should be regarding religious freedom?
Report comment to moderator
Here or abroad? Obviously I think religious freedom should be maintained here in the United States. I’m torn on the degree to which the United States should meddle in world affairs in order to spread religious freedom elsewhere. Given we have the largest economy and most powerful military on the planet, I feel like we should, to some degree, use the position of bully pulpit to encourage religious freedom where it doesn’t currently exist. On the other hand, I don’t feel “guaranteeing religious freedom” should be the basis for military action.
The tough questions come when its a choice between “refusing to work with a country that restricts religious freedom” and “doing what’s best for the United States”. So far we’ve chosen “what’s best for the United States”, as can be seen from our continued friendly relations with Saudi Arabia.
Report comment to moderator
#24 I agree with all of that. And I also agree with Sabatina James when she said the West was in a monologue with itself regarding Islam.
The world is in denial about the realities of the world’s most dangerous religion. Because it is so dangerous people including Muslims are afraid to confront it ideologically and so it rolls over the world with little resistance spreading fear and violence.
Obama can be as nice as he wants to Muslims, but it only serves to increase the terror threat. When the most powerful nations tremble with fear and bow with respect it sends the message that violent tactics work.
Obama declared America a Muslim nation. He gave speeches about the beauties of Islam. He teaches Arabic from the White House and quotes the Koran. He celebrates Muslim holidays. He bows low to their princes. This doesn’t decrease violence. There are more terror threats now than ever. People of other faiths are being persecuted and killed.
Muhammad was a terrorist. He taught his followers to lie, cheat, murder, torture and dismember non-Muslims, unless they agreed to be subservient. Islam means submission and the goal is the submission of the world. How is the world helped by praising and promoting the religion of oppression and death?
Report comment to moderator
I hope Scroopy’s liver is in better condition today.
Report comment to moderator
Salam alaikum, just to give you hemorrhoids . .
Obama declared America a Muslim nation. He gave speeches about the beauties of Islam. He teaches Arabic from the White House . .
Observe another sorry symptom of Evangelical hypersensitivity.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner (5): Here’s an idea: if you “liberate” a muslim country but then allow for a constitution to be drafted which makes Religious Freedom a crime, have you really liberated anyone anywhere??
Make it Man (7): I’ve wondered that same thing, over and over again. In the end, Iraq is just going to slide right back where it came from…
Frank: I’ll share this quote once again, in hopes that one or two more folks might read and understand:
IOW, no country has the lawful or the moral authority to use the sword to “liberate” the oppressed people of another country. Private individuals can attempt to undertake the effort, but the civil magistrate may only take action within his own sphere of authority — i.e., to protect those under his own charge, and not those under the charge of another.
Report comment to moderator
IOW, no country has the lawful or the moral authority to use the sword to “liberate” the oppressed people of another country
–
so it was wrong for us to stop Hitler from taken over the world right?
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY (29): so it was wrong for us to stop Hitler from taken over the world right?
FRANK: We didn’t go to war against Nazi Germany to stop them from taking over the world. (Which they couldn’t possibly have accomplished, anyways. Do the math.)
We went to war against Nazi Germany because they declared war against us.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK: We didn’t go to war against Nazi Germany to stop them from taking over the world. (Which they couldn’t possibly have accomplished, anyways. Do the math.)
We went to war against Nazi Germany because they declared war against us.
–
Wrong again, they were sinking our ships way before we declared war. Our leaders at the time support Hitler in many ways and treated him lik Obama is treating our enemies today.
Report comment to moderator
All nations have the God-given authority to use military force to defend themselves. Germany declares war on the US, the US fights Germany.
No nation has the God-given authority to use military force to liberate the oppressed of other nations.
It’s a simple issue of sovereignty and legitimate jurisdiction:
• The pastor of the church down the street has no legitimate jurisdiction over the church I attend, even if he is convinced that my church is abusing its authority.
• I have no authority over the wife or children of my next door neighbor, even if I am convinced that he is abusing his authority.
• The mayor of Seattle has no legitimate jurisdiction over the people of Spokane, even if he is convinced that the Spokane City Council is abusing its authority.
• Likewise, the President of the United States has no legitimate jurisdiction over the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, even if he is convinced that the leaders of those nations are abusing their authority.
Report comment to moderator
“I have no authority over the wife or children of my next door neighbor, even if I am convinced that he is abusing his authority.”
An interesting statement – so does that hands-off approach encompass the situation in which your neighbor is abusing – or even murdering his wife and children?
How much such ‘authority’ to commit genocide, murder, mayhem, etc. do you grant other people (and other nations, I suppose, by extension)?
Where do you draw the line?
Where does it become beholden on you – or your nation – to act, even in the absence of a direct invasion?
And even then – what action is actually meaningful? I mean outside of shouldering your musket and saddling up your mule and individually volunteering your services and the dubious services of your broken-down and worn-out old mule.
Presumably you might want a squadron of F-18’s these days, in order to make a non-asinine contribution to a ‘war effort’ involving a national or trans-national entity; last I checked most individuals don’t keep a squadron of F-16’s – or defense satellites – or nuclear submarines – in their garage.
But it seems essentially unclear to me here – you seem to assert that you have no ‘authority’ to fight the ‘authority of evil’, unless it is in your own backyard; I am, as always, puzzled by both the philosophical and practical ramifications of that sort of assertion, given the unfortunate realities of the present world system and technology.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY (31): Wrong again, they were sinking our ships way before we declared war [my ital - FiS].
FRANK: 9/4/41: The destroyer USS Greer is the first US ship to be fired upon by a German ship.
10/17/41: The destroyer USS Kearney is the first US ship to be hit, being torpedoed and damaged by a German U-boat near Iceland. Eleven dead US sailors are the first American military casualties of the war.
10/31/41: The destroyer USS Reuben James is torpedoed by a German U-boat near Iceland, becoming the first US ship sunk by the Germans. (Over 100 US sailors dead.)
12/7/41: The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.
12/8/41: Congress declares war on Japan (those were the days, huh?)
12/11/41: Germany declares war on the US, and we reciprocate by declaring war on Germany.
To conclude:
1. Germany was not “sinking our ships way before we declared war.”
2. My point still stands: We went to war with Germany to defend ourselves, not to “stop Hitler from taken over the world.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but if you knew Uncle Bill was abusing his kids, wouldn’t you step in and help the kids?
Report comment to moderator
DRILL (33): … so does that hands-off approach encompass the situation in which your neighbor is abusing – or even murdering his wife and children?
FRANK: 1. Please refine your use of the word “abuse.” Do you mean all abuse (including verbal and mental abuse), or just physical abuse? If the latter, do you consider corporal punishment to be physical abuse? Why or why not? Always or sometimes?
My point in asking these questions is, I am not necessarily competent to intervene in all possible ways in the affairs of my neighbor’s family.
2. Generally speaking, the civil magistrate, not the individual, is God’s ordained minister, “an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rom. 13). If I often hear yelling or dishes being thrown next door, I am not ordained of God to intervene personally, but I may certainly call on him who is — i.e., the civil magistrate.
3. This does not mean that, if I see my neighbor threatening his wife’s or children’s life or limb, I may/ought not intervene with force.
The main thing you are missing is the distinction between the legitimate spheres of jurisdiction, whether of pastors over their own churches, husbands over their own wives, mayors over their own cities, or presidents over their own nations.
The onus is on you: If the POTUS (whether he be WJC or GWB or BHO) knows for a certainty that various nations — be it China, Cuba, Mexico, etc. — abuse their citizens in myriad ways, where does God ordain him to intervene in those matters?
DRILL (33): How much such ‘authority’ to commit genocide, murder, mayhem, etc. do you grant other people (and other nations, I suppose, by extension)?
FRANK: I certainly grant no such authority, and (more importantly) neither does God. He is the ruler of the nations, and He will hold wicked and corrupt leaders accountable. But he does not ordain the magistrate of one nation to intervene in the affairs of any other.
DRILL (33): Where does it become beholden on you – or your nation – to act, even in the absence of a direct invasion?
FRANK: Again, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate from Scripture where the leader of one nation is obligated to intervene in any other nation’s manifest internal wickedness.
Of course, the UN has arrogated to itself that authority. But then, it doesn’t always — or even usually — do such a great job of it now, does it?
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (35): Yes, but if you knew Uncle Bill was abusing his kids, wouldn’t you step in and help the kids?
FRANK: I very well might. And how I “step in and help” is going to depend on how I perceive he is abusing them.
I might keep the issue at the family level. If Uncle Bill is a professing Christian, I might take a “Matthew 18-approach” to the matter. If I think he may commit/is committing a criminal offense against them, I may involve the civil magistrate. And if I catch him in the act of jeopardizing life or limb, I may very well act on my own.
But getting back to Rev. Wagner’s remarks (28), none of this has anything to do with a nation’s leaders intervening militarily in — or compelling his own citizens to intervene in — the social or political needs of other countries.
Report comment to moderator
I invite any of my fellow believers — people for whom I presume the Word of God holds very real and practical meaning — to demonstrate where Scripture obligates the leader of any governmental entity — family, church or state — to intervene in the internal affairs of any other like governmental entity.
Report comment to moderator
“But he didn’t say a word about it [during the Cairo speech],” James points out. “And that is what I hate about politics.
-Sabatina James
———–
Sabitina,
Of course it’s politics.
You don’t think he calls the Amish for assistance, do you?
It’s all “the world”.
“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:” (Ga 1:4)
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (Joh 15:19)
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1Jo 2:15)
Report comment to moderator
This seems inconsistent – you seem to be saying that you would not intervene in a situation in which someone (say a child or a woman) is being violently harmed (I am not interested in quibbling about the semantics of the word abuse here – presumably a child being murdered or having its limbs broken or whatever is not being merely spanked). This is because you do not have the authority.
You would instead call the ‘civil magistrate’ (whoever that might be) to come and do the ’scriptural’ intervening for you. Two problems with that; 1) by the time the civil magistrate gets there, it is too late – the victim is dead, or worse and 2) the civil magistrate may not feel like coming – so his irresponsibility or malfeasance still relieves you of any duty or obligation to ‘intervene’ where you ‘have no authority’?
This is odd, to me. The whole sense of scripture seems to be directly in contradiction to the idea that we are not required to come to the aid of others, either individually or corporately.
So – had the Good Samaritan arrived a couple of hours earlier, while the robbers were beating the traveler senseless on the path, he should have stood by preparing bandages and memorizing a Red Cross first aid pamphlet, instead of laying into the robbers and protecting the guy from getting beaten up in the first place? Because he did not have the authority to intervene?
I understand where you are coming from on the national-Constitutional level, but we unfortunately live in an integrated global economy where even a minor disruption could mean millions, maybe even hundreds of millions dead – or worse – and where a rogue military or even a relatively small determined band of terrorists can cause incalculable destruction and mayhem.
Call it bad as bad can be and maybe it is just the latter days coming to pass – but it is the way it is and no amount of wishing we were, once again, a nation of (somewhat) moral, agrarian, resilient, independent, musket-shouldering freemen living in the woods will make us that again.
Report comment to moderator
I think what you are saying is that none of the lessons of scriptures (in reference to practically combating evil) apply to corporate behavior . . . a problematic assertion, maybe, in a Republic, where theoretically the people – you and I – are the government. And even more problematic in a world where nuclear and engineered biological death can drop in a moment from the sky overhead, or be poured out from a few rusty 55 gallon barrels, off the back of a pickup truck.
Report comment to moderator
#9 Pastor Roy,
That is what has concerned me. From what I’ve read, Christians in Iraq did have more freedoms than they have now. Christians left Iraq by the thousands after Saddam fell. Now Muslim extremists have given a final warning:
Voice of the Martyrs is a good site for updates on religious freedom in other countries from a Christian perspective.
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?story_ID=MjU0
There is no doubt that Saddam was a cruel ruler, but he was not a ‘good’ Muslim in that he did not allow people to be killed for converting. It does seem to me that the concern that Iraq may never religious freedom again is well founded, and I have often thought the same. It’s not for nothing that scripture says that God’s ways are not our ways. Although the people lived under a brutal dictator, God opened up a space for the gospel to thrive. Now that we have intervened and have helped the religious Muslims to gain power, that space is closing, and horrible persecution is taking its place. I cannot see that we have improved their lot or ours.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at 37:
The government is a secular entity. It is not Christian, but families are not necessarily Christian either, as is a large portion of our population. I don’t know that you can directly apply Christian principles to a secular government that makes no attempt to operate under those Christian principles.
An American is a very different animal than a Christian. Some things overlap, some thing don’t.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL (40): This seems inconsistent – you seem to be saying that you would not intervene in a situation in which someone (say a child or a woman) is being violently harmed (I am not interested in quibbling about the semantics of the word abuse here – presumably a child being murdered or having its limbs broken or whatever is not being merely spanked). This is because you do not have the authority.
FRANK: Then I must not have been clear. I urge you to reread point no. 3 in my response to you:
IOW, despite my observations at 1 and 2, I think the Bible definitely supports the principle of one person coming to the aid of another person who is facing unjust/criminal violence. That is not the same thing as saying that the Bible requires it.
Furthermore, please hear Rev. Wagner at another place in the same article:
Oops: / blockquote FAIL … !
Report comment to moderator
DRILL (41): I think what you are saying is that none of the lessons of scriptures (in reference to practically combating evil) apply to corporate behavior . . . a problematic assertion, maybe, in a Republic, where theoretically the people – you and I – are the government.
FRANK: No, in a Republic, we elect or have appointed for us representatives who are the government. And I am not aware of any place in Scripture that teaches that the government of one nation is required — or even morally competent — to intervene with force in wickedness outside its own borders.
Report comment to moderator
God appoints civil magistrates (i.e., government) to execute wrath against those — whether they be within their borders or without — who threaten the peace and well-being of their own people.
I am unaware of any place where God’s Word calls upon the civil magistrate to execute wrath against those who threaten the peace and well-being of people outside their own jurisdiction (which jurisdiction, by the way, is also ordained of God — Acts 17:26).
Once again, I invite my fellow believers to demonstrate otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (43): … I don’t know that you can directly apply Christian principles to a secular government that makes no attempt to operate under those Christian principles
Frank: Once again, I apologize for not making myself clear.
You asked, “[I]f you knew Uncle Bill was abusing his kids, wouldn’t you step in and help the kids?”
I meant to convey the idea that how I “stepped in” would depend on the kind of abuse I perceived the kids to be receiving at Uncle Bill’s hands.
For example, if he was verbally/mentally/spiritually abusive, I might “step in” by bringing the matter to the attention of the rest of the family so that we might somehow try to hold him accountable.
Or if Bill is a professing Christian — and likewise being verbally/mentally/spiritually abusive — I might eventually bring the matter to the attention of his church — assuming of course that I first brought it to his attention privately, then brought it to the attention of two or three mutual friends/church members. (This is the “Matt. 18″ pattern of progressive church discipline I spoke of at (37).)
However, if I had reason to believe that Bill was committing genuine criminal offenses against his children, I might instead go straight to the civil magistrate.
And if I caught Bill in an act of violence against them, I may very well act on my own to bring violence to bear.
I hope this serves to clarify what I meant at (37).
My point was that the kinds of suspected abuse would determine the kind of government — family, church, and/or civil — I would bring to bear.
And this is because civil government isn’t the only kind of government ordained of God.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!