Two WELS members with differing worldviews could could square off against each other for the office of Wisconsin governor.
Mark Neuman -
http://markforgov.com/
www.issues2000.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Kind
http://www.wsaw.com/politics/headlines/53430922.html
http://www.ontheissues.Ron_Kind.htm
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will a WELS pastor lead the state legislature in prayer?
If my wife doesn't follow my lead and vote for my WELS candidate of choice is she sinning?
88 comments:
Ron Kind does not vote like a Confessional Lutheran:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Ron_Kind.htm
He is a pro-choice liberal who even voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. Abortion is sin, not choice, and Ron Kind's voting record indicates an embrace of various kinds of sin when it comes to life issues.
A Lutheran pastor should not lead the assembly in prayer, as that would be a clear violation of fellowship principles.
>>>Ron Kind does not vote like a Confessional Lutheran:<<<
It's important to remember that the duty of a Christian in government is to serve God by doing what is best for those being governed, not necessarily to enforce by law what God's Word says.
For example, as leader of the Israelites, Moses passed laws legalizing and legitimizing divorce. As Jesus later explained, Moses didn't do that because he loved divorce, but because the hard-hearted people were going to do it anyway, so he had to provide an orderly way of doing it for the good of the nation.
Now, in this case I fully believe that following God's Word and banning abortion is also what is in the best interest of the country. But it isn't necessarily sinful for a Christian leader who personally hates abortion to allow legalized abortion.
I don't want leaders who think it's their job to create a theocracy by force of law. Leave that to the Religious Right. The truth is that laws will never make a person or a state or a nation more Christian. Only the Gospel can do that. Thus, our ultimate mission as Christians isn't to change laws, but to proclaim the Gospel.
We have a serious misunderstanding of the two kingdoms in our midst.
Anon@7:37
I don't want leaders who think it's their job to create a theocracy by force of law. Leave that to the Religious Right. The truth is that laws will never make a person or a state or a nation more Christian. Only the Gospel can do that. Thus, our ultimate mission as Christians isn't to change laws, but to proclaim the Gospel.
-------------------
THANK YOU!
Hopefully the conversation stops with anon7:37, because nothing more needs to be said.
+2 for an awesome response.
We are not talking here about theocracy. The Confessions clearly teach that church and state should not invade each others' God-given functions. Rather, we are talking about if a Christian should vote for or support a candidate who holds views that are clearly contrary to Scripture. Abortion may be legal, but that does not make it right.
A Christian is bound to obey the government, but a Christian must not give to a government those things (i.e. the power to define sin) that belong only to God. Legal abortion is currently the law, and Christians have to live with it. If the government legalizes Homosexual marriage, we have to live with that too. The argument, though, that "people will just do this or that thing anyway, so let's try to control it a bit" is foolish in the extreme. One could apply it to drugs, prostitution, polygamy, and so forth. We should not look to adapt to the culture, but we should look to God's word to change or influence the culture.
Hmmmm.....
But it isn't necessarily sinful for a Christian leader who personally hates abortion to allow legalized abortion.
I assume that argument is made as an analogy to the point about Moses instituting laws for divorce even though this is against the will of God?
I gotta tell you, this is a pretty wild thread, especially considering how up-tight the WELS is about doing such things as praying with non-WELS Christians. Most of my relatives are either ELCA or Missouri Synod Lutherans, and when I attend functions I always make a point NOT to share that information with my pastor since I do say the Lord's Prayer, sing hymns, and worship with my relatives at weddings, funerals (more of these as we all get older), etc...
But, gee, its ok for a WELS person to support a political platform that also supports abortion since abortion "will happen anyway"?
Maybe I am missing a point here....
I actually attended 4 years of prep high school, and back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth (IF they actually existed) dancing was considered an extremely dangerous activity. Better to go out drinking on the weekends as opposed to a coed dance party....
I understand the importance of making doctrinal distinctions between various Christian denominations, but I simply will no longer take the issue of fellowship seriously anymore...
Sorry, sometimes the WELS just seems totally insane to me...but all organized religions have their own quirks....
>>>Rather, we are talking about if a Christian should vote for or support a candidate who holds views that are clearly contrary to Scripture.<<<
So you wouldn't have voted for Moses because he legalized divorce? Besides, if you refused to vote for a candidate who held unscriptural views, you'd never be able to vote for anyone.
We don't vote for people based on their Scriptural position. We vote for people based on whether we think they will be good and faithful leaders. There's a big difference. Didn't Luther himself say that he'd rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian? I'd much rather vote for a wise atheist who wanted religion out of government entirely (as it should be) than for a Christian who wants to enforce God's Word through law.
The two kingdoms are completely separate. By saying that a political leader must have Scriptural views confuses the two kingdoms. The government should not and can not use Scripture to make any decisions at all. The government is not in the kingdom governed by Scripture. The government should use natural law and reason to make decisions.
>>>The argument, though, that "people will just do this or that thing anyway, so let's try to control it a bit" is foolish in the extreme.<<<
Again, tell that to Moses. And to Jesus who defended what Moses did.
>>>We should not look to adapt to the culture, but we should look to God's word to change or influence the culture.<<<
Ah, but how does God's Word change culture? Through the law? I certainly hope not! Through political leaders? I certainly hope not! All of the leaders of Europe passed laws that forced everyone to go to church. Outwardly it looked like Europe was a very Christian place--100% church attendance! But the laws were repealed and now European churches sit empty. The law can produce outward results, but only the gospel can change hearts.
So, if we want to eliminate abortion, the solution isn't to pass governmental laws, it's to proclaim the gospel.
The minds of American Lutherans have been poisoned by Evangelicalism and the Religious Right and people like Jerry Falwell. As I said before, there is a serious misunderstanding of the two kingdoms in our midst. There's also a serious misunderstanding of the proper use of law and gospel.
>>>I assume that argument is made as an analogy to the point about Moses instituting laws for divorce even though this is against the will of God?<<<
Exactly.
Let me shock you here. As a WELS Christian, were I ever in a position of governmental authority, would think very seriously about supporting civil unions for homosexuals. Homosexuals are going to live together as couples no matter what the government says. The government might as well have a system for registering and regulating such living arrangements, just as Moses needed a way to regulate divorce in the nation of Israel.
That doesn't mean I approve of homosexuality, I don't, just like Moses didn't approve of divorce. The role of government is to provide order to society, not to convince people that homosexuality is wrong. That's the church's job through the proclamation of the Word. Let the government do what it's supposed to do (provide order in a sinful world) and let the church do what it's supposed to do (proclaim the Word).
This is Anon from Sept 3rd at 8:20...
The point I was making was not so much a political one as an observational one of how the WELS applies its "power"....
Evidently, if I am a WELS member and in politics it is acceptable to support abortion (as noted in a previous posting), gay rights, AS LONG AS I PERSONALLY DO NOT PARTICIPATE OR APPROVE IN THEM.
I assume my pastor would then be ok with that?
So I could work at the neighborhood porno shop as long as I do not personally participate or approve in pornography.
After all, people will always want to have pornography...at least I would be providing a regulated (taxed and quality controlled) service....
But, woe be unto you if you attend a Missouri Synod wedding or funeral and pray and worship with those not in 100 percent fellowship with the WELS.
Double woe if you ever attend a public event where a non-WELS clergyman gives the Lord's Prayer and you pray along with the rest.
Of course, it is ok for a WELS church to accept contributions from THRIVENT, which associates with ELCA, Missouri, and other Lutheran Synods.
I guess there is a difference in the rules when either MONEY or SECULAR POWER comes into play. Hey, everyone loves a "winner".
Wow anon@12:18 (who I assume is the same man/woman as before) I honestly believe I may have written that post in my sleep. It was everything I was thinking last night but too tired to write.
Someone said before "we're not talking about a theocracy" Aren't we? Didn't Calvin and Beza already try the same pseudo-theocracy that the religious right is gunning for? Where God's law is used as civil law?
It's not our job to legislate morality.
And its certainly not our job to cherry pick which moral highgrounds we're willing to take. Just because someone votes against abortion doesn't mean they're motives in other matters are pure (*see* Michelle Bachmann)
I am concerned far more with the actual number of abortions (on the decline) than the legality of the matter.
I pray that one day we will have a culture that abhors abortion as much as I do, but we don't. Therefore the legality doesn't matter at this point.
To quote an MLC professor, "The last thing we want is to go back to the coat hanger days"
If you really want to change the world, proclaim the gospel which has more power to change hearts than a thousand laws.
>>>The point I was making was not so much a political one as an observational one of how the WELS applies its "power"....<<<
I'm not sure what you mean by this since the only power the WELS has is the gospel.
>>>Evidently, if I am a WELS member and in politics it is acceptable to support abortion (as noted in a previous posting), gay rights, AS LONG AS I PERSONALLY DO NOT PARTICIPATE OR APPROVE IN THEM.<<<
I never said it was acceptable to SUPPORT abortion. I said it might be acceptable for a Christian leader to ALLOW abortion, if that leader felt it was in the best interest of those being governed. Though I will readily admit it's hard to see how abortion is in the best interest of any nation. Even then, though, the reason for government to ban abortion ISN'T because the Bible says it's wrong. The reason for government to ban abortion is because it isn't in the best interest of the nation.
Sometimes I get the impression that people think the government forbids murder and theft because God's Word says so. But that isn't the case. Government bans those things because they harm good order in a nation and go against natural law (not revealed law).
>>>I assume my pastor would then be ok with that?<<<
Well, he will be ok with it if he's really a Lutheran. Luther was a staunch defender of the Biblical concept of the two kingdoms. It was a hallmark doctrine of the Reformation. Now, if your pastor is a wannabe Evangelical like many WELS pastors then he might have a problem with it.
>>>But, woe be unto you if you attend a Missouri Synod wedding or funeral and pray and worship with those not in 100 percent fellowship with the WELS.<<<
Here you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the two kingdoms. When it comes to Christians and the government we're talking about two totally different kingdoms (the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world). But when we're talking about orthodox Christians and heterodox Christians we're talking about things within the same kingdom. Thus, different principles apply. Besides, I'm not sure I understand how fellowship principles have anything to do with this discussion in the first place.
>>>Double woe if you ever attend a public event where a non-WELS clergyman gives the Lord's Prayer and you pray along with the rest.<<<
But my point is that government events shouldn't have anything to do with prayer in the first place. It's a confusion of the two kingdoms to inject a little religion into politics, just as it's a confusion to inject a little politics into religion. It makes things so much easier for both the church and the state when the lines between the two aren't made blurry.
On a side note, this is why I am so uncomfortable with most Republican leaders. They very much blur the line between the two kingdoms, thinking it's their duty to enforce Scripture by law. George W. Bush was notorious for this. His policy in the middle east was driven, to a large degree, by his belief in Christian millennialism and his faulty Zionistic tendencies. For example, his daily briefings all had Bible passages on them, implying that he was leading a holy war of some kind.
I'll take an atheist Libertarian who wants to legalize pretty much everything and remove religion from the government over a Religious Right Republican any day.
Let's not forget Romans 13. God institutes government to punish those who do wrong. Even by standards of natural law, killing an unborn baby is wrong--it's murder. Accordingly, a government that fails to punish those who do wrong is absenting it's God-given authority and responsibility.
Let's also remember that as Christians, we are called to love our neighbors. Is it loving for a Christian who has the authority of the government to allow his unborn neighbors to be killed? Rather, he/she ought to defend their neighbors by working against abortion.
I just don't understand this defense of so-called pro-choice Christian leaders.
If one believes that abortion is murder and sin or homosexuality is sin, then how could you, as one holding governing authority, possibly support those things. Did not Luther say that it is never good nor right to go against conscience? President Bush only appointed pro-life members of the supreme court (his right). Do you really think his faith had NOTHING to do with that? It is absolutely insane to think that one can act in government in a completely objective way, and it is even more insane to think that one can totally set aside something that (at least should be) so deeply ingrained as faith.
And if you are making a case for total separation of church and state (which is not, by the way, a completely correct understanding of the doctrine of the two kingdoms, which itself evolved somewhat at least in Luther's thinking...I seem to remember Luther encouraging German princes to use their government authority to reform their churches and crush a rebellion of heretical peasants), why would you cite Moses as an example? The two functions of the kingdoms were combined in him at that time. He was the ultimate violation of separation of church and state! Could one also not argue that God, through Moses, was giving the children of Israel over to their unrepentant sins (as Paul discusses in Romans)?
No one is saying that the government should create Calvin's Geneva in the USA. I can live with whatever abortion laws the government imposes, but it is my right to try to legally change those laws. The point, again, is if a Lutheran legislator can, in good conscience, vote in ways that contradict Scripture. How is voting against a clearly sinful law imposing one's religion on others using government authority? How is voting against a candidate who supports immoral legislation a violation of separation of church and state? What, should we vote for nothing we believe in and vote against nothing we oppose? Where does that leave us as Christians? In some murky swamp of political middle-ground and watered down theology where no one really dares stand up for what they believe. Luther had no fear of telling his Emperor when he was wrong and had embraced sin. Why should we fear doing the same to our own ELECTED government?
So feel free, if your conscience allows you, to support candidates who refuse to stand up against murder and the perversion of marriage and Lord knows what else. If we lived under a king who decreed these things, I would agree that we must obey even his odious laws until he directly tried to rule in our hearts as only Christ can. However, we have a choice in our country. We have a choice to advocate for and elect good, honest, and truly Christian leaders or not.
Again, feel free to tolerate murder and perversion. No doubt doing so will make you feel very modern and enlightened. There is a very modern, enlightened church just for you, where you will be most welcome--ELCA--where sin is not sin and tolerance is the ultimate virtue.
"George W. Bush was notorious for this. His policy in the middle east was driven, to a large degree, by his belief in Christian millennialism and his faulty Zionistic tendencies. For example, his daily briefings all had Bible passages on them, implying that he was leading a holy war of some kind."
I'm sorry, but this statement is idiotic. If you want to make bizarre assertions about the history of public policy, then try actually substantiating what you say with some documented facts and accounting for more conventional interpretations. And, by the way, are you aware how offensive the term Zionism really is? It is the preferred term used by Islamic radicals and Holocaust deniers.
>>>I'm sorry, but this statement is idiotic. If you want to make bizarre assertions about the history of public policy, then try actually substantiating what you say with some documented facts<<<
It's not idiotic at all. Here are the documented facts:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/rumsfelds_bibleverse_briefings.html
There are plenty of other sources, this is just one of the first that came up.
Here's an excerpt:
"It was widely known that many members of the Bush Administration wore religion on their sleeves. But it was likely news to many that they actually stamped religion onto official Pentagon documents."
>>>And, by the way, are you aware how offensive the term Zionism really is? It is the preferred term used by Islamic radicals and Holocaust deniers.<<<
Oh come now, are you serious? Zionism as at term isn't offensive at all. It may be used offensively, but nothing about the term is offensive in the least. Heck, many Jews call themselves Zionists. There's even a nice wikipedia page about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
The truth is that most millennialistic Christians are Zionists due to their mistaken interpretation of Scripture and their literalistic belief in the restoration of the Jewish nation.
It's a pretty well-established fact that George W. Bush's foreign policy was driven to a large degree by his millennialistic misunderstanding of Scripture. As the article I quoted above reports, Don Rumsfeld purposely took advantage of Bush's faith in order to goad him into war.
Can I throw something into this discussion? With all the discussion & debate into abortion, did ya'll know that most birth control pills act to 1. change hormones in the female so she does not release an egg during ovulation and also 2. act to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall? That means that birth control can act to serve as an abortion. The argument from pro-life activists insist that life begins at conception (aka when sperm fertilizes egg to create a human being). That means that birth control can be an agent that kills said human beings. Moreover, there are many unintended abortions that occur in many females, such as when miscarriages occur during various phases of the pregnancy. Just some food for thought.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Two Kingdoms doctrine. The doctrine does not require a "separation of church and state"; Luther never supported such a thing. He expected the government to support the church (e.g. requiring attendance, deposing Karlstadt from his congregation, imprisoning heretics, and yes, expelling Jews and burning witches). The two Kingdoms application was that the church itself could not enforce these things; that was the role of the state - to support the family and the church. Now, this forum being what it is, I am of course not advocating a return to 16th century Europe. The application is that the state fails to fulfill its God given task when it does not protect life, etc. However, the acts of politicians arise from political expediency. WELS politicians are no different.
And another misunderstanding might be separating Law and Gospel - by separating I don't mean distinguishing between them, but saying things like we need to preach more Gospel to change hearts. People have to be convicted by the Law that they need the Gospel. The Law drives them to Christ. Giving the Gospel to the unrepentant is casting the pearls to the swine. Law and Gospel are not mutually exclusive.
Now I understand that might not be what is intended with such comments and the argument is just being made that many just preach Law. True that. But some might be confused by the language. There is no Gospel without the Law.
Abortionists, those who have had abortions, the men who force or pay for them, and the politicians who draft and support laws that legalize it need to repent. Only then can the Gospel be sweet comfort for their souls.
Making it legal and safe so as to avoid coat-hangers is perverse. It does not negate the fact that a God-given life is being taken. But there is forgiveness.
Rob
>>>Even by standards of natural law, killing an unborn baby is wrong--it's murder.<<<
I think everyone here agrees on that point. I myself have made that point several times.
>>>Is it loving for a Christian who has the authority of the government to allow his unborn neighbors to be killed? Rather, he/she ought to defend their neighbors by working against abortion.<<<
Yes, but again we return to the fundamental issue of law and gospel. How exactly are Christians to "work against abortion"? Not by relying on the power of the law, but by relying on the proclamation of the gospel. If we really want to show love for our neighbor then we should teach the gospel to them (with a resulting change in outward behavior) instead of simply changing their outward behavior with the threat of law (which still leaves them sinful to the core and not an iota closer to salvation).
>>>I just don't understand this defense of so-called pro-choice Christian leaders.<<<
Well, this conversation started when someone implied that it would be wrong to vote for someone who isn't an orthodox Lutheran. Thus, my original point was simply that we should judge politicians not by comparing them with what the Lutheran church says but with what natural reason says. If you want to call that a defense of pro-choice leaders, have at it.
>>>If one believes that abortion is murder and sin or homosexuality is sin, then how could you, as one holding governing authority, possibly support those things.<<<
Sigh. Once again, we're not talking about SUPPORTING those things, we're talking about ALLOWING those things. There's a huge difference. Ask Moses. He allowed divorce but didn't support divorce.
>>>I seem to remember Luther encouraging German princes to use their government authority to reform their churches and crush a rebellion of heretical peasants<<<
Umm, Luther regretted that decision for the rest of his life. It turned into a bloody massacre. Besides, Luther didn't tell the princes to crush the rebels because they were heretics, but because they were rebels. Big difference.
>>>The two functions of the kingdoms were combined in him at that time. He was the ultimate violation of separation of church and state!<<<
Hey, guess what. Israel was a theocracy! That means that religious and political power were combined in one person. That's the definition of a theocracy. So, unless you're saying that America should be a theocracy, your point falls flat on its face.
Your point falls even flatter when you realize that Moses, as the leader of a theocracy, could easily have used that power to outlaw divorce. And yet, even in a theocracy, Moses still maintained the separation of the two kingdoms within himself. As a religious leader he preached that divorce was sinful. As a political leader he said that divorce was legal. If Moses even kept that distinction in a theocracy, what does that say for us who don't live in a theocracy?
>>>but it is my right to try to legally change those laws.<<<
Of course that's your right. At the same time, though, you should remember that changing laws might make an outward difference, but isn't going to save a single person for eternity. Also remember that your motivation for changing laws ought to be because you think it's best for the nation, not because you think the government needs to follow the Bible.
>>>The point, again, is if a Lutheran legislator can, in good conscience, vote in ways that contradict Scripture.<<<
No, that's not the point at all. The point is that there's no such thing as a "Lutheran legislator". The office of legislator is a purely secular office. Thus, a legislator's goal is not to vote according to Scripture, but to vote according to natural reason.
I think that this is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of vocation. Luther once said that Christian cobblers don't serve God by putting little crosses on their shoes, they do it by making very good shoes. In the same way, legislators don't serve God by passing laws that line up with the Bible, they do it by passing laws that are in the best interest of the nation.
>>>What, should we vote for nothing we believe in and vote against nothing we oppose? <<<
We should vote for whatever is best for the nation. Sometimes that will happen to agree with Scripture, sometimes it will happen to disagree.
>>>Luther had no fear of telling his Emperor when he was wrong and had embraced sin.<<<
But the Emperor was a combination church/political ruler. That was the whole problem--that church and state had been combined. That's why Luther was so adamant about the separation of the two kingdoms.
>>>So feel free, if your conscience allows you, to support candidates who refuse to stand up against murder and the perversion of marriage and Lord knows what else.<<<
So then would you consider Moses a leader who refused to stand up against the perversion of marriage known as divorce?
>>>We have a choice to advocate for and elect good, honest, and truly Christian leaders or not. <<<
Sigh. It doesn't matter if our leaders are "truly Christian" or not!!! (Besides, how are you planning to determine who is "truly" a Christian or not? Reading hearts?) Once again, I will remind you of what Luther said: "I'd rather be governed by a wise Turk (the Turks were Muslim by the way [gasp!]) than a foolish Christian." We should advocate for and elect good, honest leaders whether they are Christian or not.
>>>Again, feel free to tolerate murder and perversion.<<<
OK, I will, just like Moses tolerated divorce. (You must think Moses was the worst leader in history, huh?)
>>>No doubt doing so will make you feel very modern and enlightened.<<<
Modern? Not at all. What I'm saying is as old as Moses, Jesus, Augustine, and Luther. Ever read anything by any of those men? It's you that is buying into the modern American Evangelical ideas.
>>>There is a very modern, enlightened church just for you, where you will be most welcome--ELCA--where sin is not sin and tolerance is the ultimate virtue.<<<
Are you serious? This just highlights your complete lack of understanding of the distinction between the two kingdoms. You assume that political positions and church positions must be synonymous. But, as I've demonstrated in this lengthy post, nothing could be further from the truth.
It always amazes me that people in this country have been so thoroughly corrupted by American Evangelicalism that they are so deeply offended by the notion the church and state are of two completely different kingdoms. The doctrine of the two kingdoms is completely foreign to most people, along with the doctrines of law and gospel and vocation.
One last side note: Historically speaking, the worst thing that ever happened to the Christian church was the Christianization of the Roman government. For the first 300 years of its history, the church thrived, even amidst terrible persecution, because they trusted in the power of the gospel. But once Constantine Christianized the government, the church began it's long slow descent into false teaching and apathy, because they began trusting in the power of the law and legislation rather than the gospel. I've often thought that when Constantine saw that sign in the sky, it was placed there not by God, but by Satan. Satan knew how destructive it would be to mix church and state. It's a good reminder for all of us. Our trust and our hope are in the gospel, and only in the gospel. Only the gospel can change hearts and save people from sin. Simply trying to change outward behavior through laws and legislation is worthless and destructive, because it takes our focus off of the gospel.
>>>The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Two Kingdoms doctrine. The doctrine does not require a "separation of church and state"; Luther never supported such a thing. He expected the government to support the church (e.g. requiring attendance<<<
Umm, are you serious? That's not true at all.
Martin Luther's book, On Secular Authority, was an ardent expression of the principle of Liberty of Conscience. “Liberty of conscience” is the principle that forbids human authorities from coercing people’s spiritual beliefs. In this book, Luther insisted that God requires voluntary religious beliefs. Compelled or coerced faith is insincere and must never be allowed. Luther insisted that “liberty of conscience” was one of Jesus Christ’s principles. According to Luther, the civil government’s role is simply to keep outward peace in society. The civil government has no business enforcing spiritual laws. “The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth,” Luther insisted.
Administrator asked:
<"If my wife doesn't follow my lead and vote for my WELS candidate of choice is she sinning? ">
Yes she is sinning. If it does happen, corporal punishment is definitely in order. Never underestimate the effectiveness of giving firm (but loving) physical correction to a wife. It might seem harsh but it's actually a much easier way and will, in the long term, keep that sort of problem from arising again.
The problem with everybody voting their own conscience is that sometimes, not everyone really knows their own conscience and need guidance.
But obviously it's better to teach your wife the right way before she makes the wrong choice.
Ah yes. If it is on Wikipedia it MUST be true. If you are so confident in your use of the term Zionist, then go to and try the word out in a Jewish congregation and see how well that works for you. Walk up to an Israeli and call him or her a Zionist and see what happens. I suppose there is nothing wrong with the "N" word, because many African Americans use it among themselves. It is all about context, and the context you are using sounds highly questionable. Can you define the term and provide some etymology? I'm not at all sure you really understand it in context, because, if you did, I cannot imagine you would use it.
I do, however, have to agree with you that there are many Evangelicals who do believe in a millennial restoration of Israel. What exactly that has to do with foreign policy under the Bush administration is really quite beyond me. I'm not a great fan of George W. Bush for any number of reasons, but I'm also not a fan of moronic conspiracy theories. This theory of yours is something that Lyndon Larouche supporters would have a field day with.
What you call "established fact" is not in fact very well established. Not all sources are created equal. To sufficiently support a theory like the only you have suggested would require sources with authority. Your sources are NPR Blogs and Wikipedia? Give me a break! When you can present some real evidence (i.e. show me the meeting minutes, the policy documents, the memoirs of people involved, congressional reports, the accounts of respectable historians and journalists who have done the primary research and documented their findings) then I might be inclined to listen. You also need to define "large degree." How large? Was it a primary causal factor? If so, you'll need to address other possible causes for Bush's actions and explain, using solid research, why they are not primary. You cannot just throw out assertions and expect people to take you seriously.
I am not sure how any Christian can in "good conscience" vote for anything that promotes or legalizes abortion. It is murder which is never even for the good of the people or the state.
That said, a Christian politician who voted against abortion but was on the losing side of that vote, may then move quickly to regulate that abortion (eg age limits, months pregnant limits, parental notifications, waiting periods, etc.). Such political positions may seem to promote abortion, but under the circumstances (abortion is legal), it actually is working to limit them. This is the spirit of Moses dealing with divorce.
>>>Can you define the term and provide some etymology? I'm not at all sure you really understand it in context, because, if you did, I cannot imagine you would use it.<<<
No, you're the one who doesn't understand the term. Zionism is a Jewish movement, started by Jews, supported by Jews, which believes that the Jewish people have a right to a nation in the Promised Land. Many prominent Jewish American leaders were/are Zionists, for example, Louis Brandeis, who was a Supreme Court justice.
Basically it's a term that describes a party or a movement. It's like people calling themselves liberals or conservatives or progressives or whatever. Sure, you can call someone a progressive in an attempt to insult them, but there's nothing necessarily insulting about the term itself.
>>>I do, however, have to agree with you that there are many Evangelicals who do believe in a millennial restoration of Israel. What exactly that has to do with foreign policy under the Bush administration is really quite beyond me.<<<
It's quite beyond you? Well, President Bush is an ardent Evangelical, who believes in the millennial restoration of Israel. This belief was well-known among Bush advisers, who used it to push him to go to war in the Middle East. This has all been documented very thoroughly. I provided you one clear and documented example--Rumsfeld putting Bible passages on CIA briefings, implying Bush was leading a holy war.
>>>When you can present some real evidence (i.e. show me the meeting minutes, the policy documents, the memoirs of people involved, congressional reports, the accounts of respectable historians and journalists who have done the primary research and documented their findings) then I might be inclined to listen.<<<
Dude, the NPR article had actual pictures of the actual CIA briefings with the actual Bible passages on them. If that's not primary source material, what is?!?
If you don't like the NPR article, here's links to the same story from different sources:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/18/2009-05-18_rummys_memos_suggest_a_crusade_after_all_used_scripture_to_prod_w_in_iraq_war.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/rummy_in_intelligence_preach_mag_60tb9PkevVpvDeMCAkGmCI
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18rumsfeld.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Here's a site that has photographs of all of the briefings in question:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
Take a look at them yourself and tell me if you think that those passages were applied correctly and if they maintained the proper distinction between the two kingdoms.
>>>And another misunderstanding might be separating Law and Gospel - by separating I don't mean distinguishing between them, but saying things like we need to preach more Gospel to change hearts. People have to be convicted by the Law that they need the Gospel. The Law drives them to Christ. Giving the Gospel to the unrepentant is casting the pearls to the swine. Law and Gospel are not mutually exclusive.<<<
No, Rob, you don't understand the point. The kingdom of this world, that is, the kingdom of secular government, is a kingdom governed by law.
The kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church, is a kingdom governed by gospel.
So when people try, for example, to end abortion by passing laws in the government, they are trusting in the law, rather than trusting in the gospel to move hearts. In other words, they are putting their trust in the wrong kingdom.
Even in the Church, we don't use the law to change behavior. That's called legalism. No one is saying that the law is useless or that is isn't to be proclaimed right along side the gospel.
The point simply is that only the gospel can change hearts. Using the law, whether in government or the church, to change outward behavior is ultimately pointless since only the gospel can change the heart and produce good fruits.
>>>I am not sure how any Christian can in "good conscience" vote for anything that promotes or legalizes abortion.<<<
Sigh.
Once again, let's go back to Moses. Moses, in good conscience, "voted" for something that legalized divorce. Was he a bad Christian?
No.
A Christian in a position of power is conscience bound to vote for what is best for the nation, not necessarily to vote for whatever the Bible says.
The abortion issue is so emotional that people can't think clearly about this. Let's change the example.
The Bible tells us that women ought to dress modestly, correct? Women dressing immodestly is just as big a sin in God's sight as abortion.
So does that mean that Christians in the government are conscience bound to enforce morality by legislating a national dress code, detailing exactly what women can and cant' wear?
Of course not. That's not the government's business.
So if you're going to say that all Christians in government have to enforce God's law when it comes to abortion, then you'd better be consistent and say that they have to enforce ALL of God's laws. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible must be enforced by law. Either it all does, or none of it does.
>>>That said, a Christian politician who voted against abortion but was on the losing side of that vote, may then move quickly to regulate that abortion...This is the spirit of Moses dealing with divorce.<<<
Umm, no, Moses wasn't on the losing side of the divorce debate causing him to regulate it instead. Moses cast the deciding vote to allow divorce when he could have forbidden it completely. Huge difference.
"So when people try, for example, to end abortion by passing laws in the government, they are trusting in the law, rather than trusting in the gospel to move hearts. In other words, they are putting their trust in the wrong kingdom."
I may not understand the point, that is true. But I'm not talking about using the Law to change hearts but to curb behavior. When the government enables people to sin through legalization, we should stand against that. It's like those against the death penalty. They say it does not stop other people from murdering. Well, it does stop the one person who is being executed. They certainly won't murder again. And so, the laws of man that "align" with God's laws are not just developed by men of themselves. The Law of God is written on our hearts and minds. When men pass laws outlawing murder or theft, that is from God's law. So the law serves a purpose in secular society. And government serves as the executive branch to deliver the punishment for violation of them.
The church, then, should preach the Law and then the Gospel to those broken by the Law. Only then will it be embraced for the Good News that it is. You can't just preach the Gospel without preaching what one has been saved from. You can't just say God forgives all sins through Christ without saying abortion is murder and should be avoided, stealing is wrong and should be avoided - you didn't avoid it but Jesus did and there is forgiveness.
Maybe a better direction is "what Gospel are you preaching to change hearts?" What is included in that Gospel? Is there mention of the law? Is abortion a violation of that law? Is there forgiveness for abortion? Yes. Yes. Yes, I hope.
Rob
"Umm, Luther regretted that decision for the rest of his life. It turned into a bloody massacre. Besides, Luther didn't tell the princes to crush the rebels because they were heretics, but because they were rebels. Big difference."
Actually, in his tract entitled "On the Murdering, Thieving, Hordes of Peasants" Luther was most irate that the peasants had cloaked their justification for rebellion in a perverted version of the Gospel. He did indeed regret the final outcome (something like 50,000 dead peasants), but he did in fact encourages the princes to use the sword in large part because of the dangerous false doctrines that the peasants had taken up.
"Sigh. It doesn't matter if our leaders are "truly Christian" or not!!!"
Oh please. Are you really telling me that the fruits of saving faith (without even directly preaching it) would have no relationship to how one governs? According to the Theology of the Cross, self-denial is central to the life of a Christian. I should think that a leader who denies self and thinks first of God and others would be ideal. Don't tell me faith doesn' matter. It is the only thing that matters for each and every one of us. You really seem like someone who is going out of his or her way to come off as oh so enlightened and worldly. I would simply remind you of the Holy Spirit's warning through the Apostle John--"Do not love the world or anything in the world."
"Besides, how are you planning to determine who is "truly" a Christian or not? Reading hearts?)"
By their public confession of faith and the fruits of faith that they bear.
"Once again, I will remind you of what Luther said: "I'd rather be governed by a wise Turk (the Turks were Muslim by the way [gasp!]) than a foolish Christian." We should advocate for and elect good, honest leaders whether they are Christian or not."
There is, in fact, no such thing as a good work or a good person outside of sanctification, which can only come in response to justification by faith alone. Luther said a lot of things, many of them taken out of context (something the Nazi's loved to do). Not everything he said is doctrine.
"The point simply is that only the gospel can change hearts. Using the law, whether in government or the church, to change outward behavior is ultimately pointless since only the gospel can change the heart and produce good fruits."
But the law has to come first. The law must be preached to terrify secure hearts and demonstrate the absolute hopelessness of self-righteousness. Look at how Paul structures Romans. Heavy law first, then, and only then, the purest Gospel. We want to, as Walther said (for a quick review, see "God's No and God's Yes"), give the Gospel a general predominance, but we must not be afraid to preach the law to the those lost in unrepentant sin. Embracing abortion as a legitimate choice--personal or political--is unrepentant sin and a rejection of God's law.
"Once again, let's go back to Moses. Moses, in good conscience, "voted" for something that legalized divorce. Was he a bad Christian?"
Could you please provide the Scripture reference here? Was Moses "legitimizing" all kinds of divorce, because there is indeed such a thing (as no doubt you know) as a Scriptural / legitimate divorce.
A Christian in a position of power is conscience bound to vote for what is best for the nation, not necessarily to vote for whatever the Bible says.
Imagine the following:
A Christian wacko group starts carrying out attacks against abortion groups.
The government, in an attempt to stop these attacks, decides to vote on the issue of allowing federal surveillance of:
#1. All self-professed Christian worship services, publications, and public gatherings including such things as youth groups.
#2. Creating files on all Americans as to which particular church group they belong to.
#3. Demanding yearly audits of where Church mission dollars are being spent.
Are you still willing to say a Christian should vote for what is "best" for the nation (extremely subjective that term "best")
>>>But I'm not talking about using the Law to change hearts but to curb behavior.<<<
Sure, the law as wielded by the government is most definitely a curb. But the point is that a curb will not move anyone a step closer to the kingdom of God.
The problem is that too many Christians say, "If only we can convince the government to outlaw abortion, our job will be done and we will have a more Christian country." But nothing could be further from the truth. The goal of a Christian is not to curb behavior through legislation but to change hearts with the gospel (which then also naturally results in a change in behavior).
>>>The Law of God is written on our hearts and minds. When men pass laws outlawing murder or theft, that is from God's law. So the law serves a purpose in secular society.<<<
Yes, exactly!!! The government should be passing laws in line with the natural knowledge of God, not the revealed knowledge of God. This whole discussion was started because someone said that government leaders ought to be judged on how closely they follow the Bible. I was the one who pointed out that the government is restricted to the natural knowledge of God.
>>>The church, then, should preach the Law and then the Gospel to those broken by the Law. Only then will it be embraced for the Good News that it is.<<<
I totally agree. Who on this thread ever said that the church shouldn't proclaim the law then the gospel?!?
>>>You can't just preach the Gospel without preaching what one has been saved from.<<<
No one ever said this!
>>>You can't just say God forgives all sins through Christ without saying abortion is murder and should be avoided, stealing is wrong and should be avoided<<<
Again, no one ever said this!
>>>Maybe a better direction is "what Gospel are you preaching to change hearts?" <<<
The gospel of Christ crucified. What other gospel is there?
>>>What is included in that Gospel? Is there mention of the law?<<<
Absolutely not!!! The law has absolutely no place in the gospel! Like you said, the law is preached before the gospel, to prepare hearts for the gospel, but the law has nothing to do with the gospel. It stands diametrically opposed to the gospel!
>>>Oh please. Are you really telling me that the fruits of saving faith (without even directly preaching it) would have no relationship to how one governs?<<<
Christians serving in the government most certainly bear fruits of faith in their work. The core question, though, is what sort of fruit do they bear? Do they bear fruits of faith by trying to enforce God's Word by law? Or do they bear fruits of faith by passing laws which will serve the best interest of the nation?
Again, this is a matter of Christian vocation. The cobbler bears fruit not by putting little crosses on their shoes, but by making really good shoes. Likewise, the legislator bear fruit not by passing Christianized laws, but by passing good laws. Admittedly, many times those two things will be the same, but not always, as the example of Moses shows.
>>>You really seem like someone who is going out of his or her way to come off as oh so enlightened and worldly.<<<
Caution, friend. By that statement you are calling Moses, Jesus, Augustine, and Luther "oh so enlightened and worldly". I'm simply describing their doctrine of the two kingdoms.
>>>By their public confession of faith and the fruits of faith that they bear.<<<
So you're saying that we should vote on people for public office based on their church membership rather than on their platform or experience or aptitude? Yikes, just yikes. "Better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."
>>>Embracing abortion as a legitimate choice--personal or political--is unrepentant sin and a rejection of God's law.<<<
Wow.
Well, then I guess that Moses is burning in hell right now. By your definition, he embraced the sin of divorce and lived in that unrepentant sin until the day he died.
Did you really mean to condemn the man whom God himself buried and whose body the archangel Michael defended?
OK, let's try this.
All of you who deny the doctrine of the two kingdoms, please address these two questions:
1. If believers are required to enforce God's will by law, and if allowing sin in society is tantamount to embracing and promoting sin, then please explain how Moses could allow divorce and have that decision supported by Christ himself.
2. If believers must ensure that abortion is outlawed in society, does that mean that all other Scriptural commands must be enforced by governmental law too? Must the government pass a dress code to enforce modesty? Must the government outlaw all alcohol to prohibit drunkenness? Must the government repeal free speech to avoid all cursing and swearing? If not, why not? Simply because abortion is considered a "serious" sin and the other aren't? On what basis can you claim that the government must enforce some Scriptural laws but not others?
I think those are two valid questions that require answers from my opponents.
We'll see if I get any answers or if the questions are avoided.
My guess is that they will be avoided since they demonstrate the absurdity of the those trying to deny the separation of the two kingdoms.
I'm not denying the doctrine of two kingdoms, but I would say that Israel was probably under a different type of "governmental" structure than we find ourselves.
"If believers are required to enforce God's will by law ..." - do you work in the government? I only have prayer, my vote and anything I can do to influence my representatives. If I happened to be a representative, I hope I wouldn't separate myself from my moral convictions. But who knows? I probably would on occasion or maybe that's why God hasn't given me those roles for my vocation.
"Must the government pass a dress code to enforce modesty?" - There are laws that prohibit public nudity where I live.
"Must the government outlaw all alcohol to prohibit drunkenness?" - No, but public intoxication and drunk driving are violations of the law.
"Must the government repeal free speech to avoid all cursing and swearing?" - No, but slander and libel ...
"On what basis can you claim that the government must enforce some Scriptural laws but not others?" - I'd say that they get their authority from God as Romans 13 tells us.
Now, I guess you could call it the laws that deal with how we treat our fellow man needing to be enforced by the government. I think murder is one of those. The church does not have the authority to enforce the execution of those who murder. And I'm thankful for that. The church can, and should, bar the unrepentant from communion, counsel, pray, confront, excommunicate, etc. But the punishment comes from the government. Is abortion murder?
I'm not saying take the full law of God and have government enforce it. But that is basically where this discussion ends about two kingdoms.
When it comes to changing hearts, I'm not saying the law of God "changes hearts" other than by the Spirit working through the Word to break us down. So the Law is intrinsic to the Gospel. But I haven't asked the government to change hearts. The government's enforcement of "Thou shall not murder/kill" is not to bring people to Christ. So it seems your arguments are confusing the distinction, IMO.
Rob
>>>I'm not saying take the full law of God and have government enforce it.<<<
Why not?
If the government is supposed to ban abortion because the Bible says so, then why shouldn't the government ban everything else that God's Word says is sinful?!? Why draw an arbitrary line with abortion? Just because you think it's more serious than other sins?
Look, I fully agree that the government should ban abortion. The key, though, is that the government should ban abortion, not because it violates the Scriptural law, but because it violates the natural law that murder is wrong.
The government is called to enforce natural law. The government is not called to enforce the written law (Scripture). That's the big difference that people are missing.
Thus, we should judge political leaders not by how close they are to the Bible (which is what someone said to start this discussion), but how close they are to the natural law.
I wonder when the conversation is going to get around to discusses traditional vs. contemporary worship styles
JK
>>>Caution, friend. By that statement you are calling Moses, Jesus, Augustine, and Luther "oh so enlightened and worldly". I'm simply describing their doctrine of the two kingdoms.<<<
First off, I'm not your friend buddy. Do not stand behind Moses, Luther, Jesus or anyone else to defend your warped politics and doctrine.
>>>So you're saying that we should vote on people for public office based on their church membership rather than on their platform or experience or aptitude? Yikes, just yikes. "Better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."<<<
You really like that quote don't you! Again, Luther said a lot of things that are not doctrine. We are going nowhere with this, so let us just vote for who we will and be done with it. For me, doctrine and faith come into the equation where they intersect with public policy decisions and character. I will not support any candidate who does not actively oppose abortion and the corruption of marriage. I am not asking for the WELS or the Pope to become the new American government, but just that Christian voters be true to their beliefs when going to the polling place.
>>>Wow. Well, then I guess that Moses is burning in hell right now. By your definition, he embraced the sin of divorce and lived in that unrepentant sin until the day he died. Did you really mean to condemn the man whom God himself buried and whose body the archangel Michael defended?<<
What are you bloody talking about? You are obsessed with this Moses / Divorce analogy which you have yet to place in context and fully explain. You continue to play this weird Texas Two-Step in your arguments. When someone makes a point, you harp on some largely irrelevant analogy.
Let's get back to the main point. If someone who claims to be a Christian and yet refuses to admit that murder (abortion) is a sin, does that person not live in a state of mortal sin or unreptentence? Divorce is not the same issue. There is such a thing as a scriptural divorce. There is no such thing as a Scriptural abortion.
>>>Thus, we should judge political leaders not by how close they are to the Bible (which is what someone said to start this discussion), but how close they are to the natural law.<<<<
So, are you saying that there is a natural law that is separate and distinct from God's law? If by "natural" law you mean the natural knowledge of the law all people carry in their hearts, you are in fact dealing with God's law. If you mean some sort of Jeffersonian / Lockean / Enlightenment version of natural law, you are dealing with a secular philosophy and definition of what the law is.
Since our Moses obsessee either cannot or sill not provide the scriptural reference or context for this divorce issue, please allow me:
Deuteronomy 24:1-5 deals specifically with divorce. It lays out some conditions for divorce. Note that the GOVERNMENT is not involved in the process of divorce. The certificate of divorce was written and delivered by the husband himself. The wife had no power to initiate a divorce and the government did not hold a trial or hear facts in the case. It was actually common in the ancient world for the male head of house to have life and death authority over his wife and children.
Our Moses Obseesee no doubt is most focused on Mark 10. Here, Pharisees come to Jesus to test him. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, and Jesus explains thusly: 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permits a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away 5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied." Jesus goes on to assert the lifelong nature of marriage as established by creation.
Notice that what Jesus says in v. 5 about "hard hearts." Allowing husbands to divorce wives was not a concession ("they will do it anyway, so lets regulate it). Divorce was not even all that regulated, given that husbands were the ones who wrote and enforced the certificates! This is a punishment for sin! This is God giving the rebellious children of Israel over to their sins.
Paul tells us in Romans 1:24-32 that God indeed does give people over to their unrepentant sins (i.e. sins embraced as a good or at least not defined as evil). Romans 1:24--Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." As the CSSB note says, "God allowed sin to run its course as an act of judgment."
Scripture interprets scripture, and it is a general interpretive principle that one uses clear passages on a subject to interpret less clear passages. Moses was not acting on his own here. He was carrying out God's will in giving over a sinful people to their wickedness. Jesus clarifies that God's will is for all marriages to consist of a lifelong union of one man and one woman. Matthew 5:32 adds / clarifies that only marital unfaithfulness constitutes a scriptural divorce.
I will continue to insist that this divorce / abortion analogy is a misapplication of Scripture for two reasons. First, I do not think Mark 10 in any way establishes a principle that "they will do it anyway, so let's regulate it for their own good." When read in the context of Romans 1, it has a much different meaning. Second, Israel was not a republic. In applying the Confessional understanding of government authority, one has to keep the type of government one is dealing with in mind. Nowhere does the Bible or the Book of Concord establish a certain form of government. The United States is a republic, where we elect men and women to represent us and make laws for us in Washington D.C. As such, Christians are not voting to impose theocracy when we vote for pro-life candidates and refuse to support pro-choice candidates. We are voting for men and women who REPRESENT our beliefs. When we work for things like the overturning of Roe v. Wade (which would not, by the way, criminalize abortion immediately), we do so through the legislative and electoral processes as citizens of this republic. That is our lawful right under the Constitution--our form of government, which, like all others, has divine sanction. If that rule of law (i.e. the constitution) outlines a process for passing laws, with some limits on what the government can legislate, there is absolutely no sin or violation of doctrine in a Christian voter or lawmaker working to overturn legalized abortion.
>>>You are obsessed with this Moses / Divorce analogy which you have yet to place in context and fully explain.<<<
What sort of context are you looking for exactly? Moses, in the civil law, allowed for divorce. Jesus later said that this was a necessary piece of legislation. What more context is necessary? You have a Bible right? Why don't you try reading it if you're looking for context.
>>>When someone makes a point, you harp on some largely irrelevant analogy.<<<
Would you care to demonstrate how the Moses analogy is irrelevant? Jesus sure thought it was relevant. Do you know better?
>>>Do not stand behind Moses, Luther, Jesus or anyone else to defend your warped politics and doctrine.<<<
Well, if you're going to make a claim like that, you'd better be ready to demonstrate exactly how my doctrine is incorrect and how is disagrees with Moses and Jesus. No one has yet to do that.
>>>If someone who claims to be a Christian and yet refuses to admit that murder (abortion) is a sin, does that person not live in a state of mortal sin or unreptentence?<<<
What are you talking about? Who is saying that abortion isn't sinful? I think abortion is horrifyingly sinful. My only point is simply that it isn't the government's place to enforce Scripture by law, not is it our place to judge politicians based on how closely they adhere to Scripture. That's my only point. I don't know why you think I'm saying that abortion isn't wrong.
>>>There is no such thing as a Scriptural abortion.<<<
What are you talking about? Of course there's such a thing as a Scriptural abortion. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo must be aborted to save the life of the mother. In such a case, abortion is necessary and not sinful.
Seriously people, get a grip and start responding to the things I'm actually saying!!!
>>>So, are you saying that there is a natural law that is separate and distinct from God's law?<<<
Huh?!? I'm simply saying that God's law is revealed in two ways. It is written on the heart (natural knowledge) and written in Scripture (revealed knowledge).
The government is called only to use the natural knowledge of the law. Government has nothing to do with the revealed knowledge of God in Scripture, or at least they shouldn't.
Thus, when judging politicians we should judge them based on how faithful they are to God's natural law, not God's Scriptural law.
Now, let me say this one more time. Maybe people will read it this time:
It is entirely good and proper to vote for those who oppose abortion. But the reason for doing this is because abortion violates natural law, not because it violates Scriptural law.
I don't see why this is so controversial or difficult to understand.
No one has answered these questions yet, so let me ask them again:
1. If believers are required to enforce God's will by law, and if allowing sin in society is tantamount to embracing and promoting sin, then please explain how Moses could allow divorce and have that decision supported by Christ himself.
2. If believers must ensure that abortion is outlawed in society, does that mean that all other Scriptural commands must be enforced by governmental law too? On what basis can you claim that the government must enforce some Scriptural laws but not others?
"Why draw an arbitrary line with abortion? Just because you think it's more serious than other sins?"
To take your jargon and describe it as "natural law," yes, I think murder (abortion included) is more serious than, say, theft. And the government in charge of enforcing "natural laws" thinks murder is more serious than theft as indicated by the length and severity of punishment assigned to each. Obviously they have not determined abortion to be murder. Therein lies the problem. Not where do they get their mandate to enforce laws and which laws at that.
In the eyes of God, abortion is a violation of His holy Law just as theft is a violation. The penalty is the same - death, which has been atoned for by Christ. So that won't play here.
Where the "natural law" aligns with God's Law is still not an invention of man. You may have heard the Gospel from reading the Bible or from a friend, but the friend didn't make the Gospel up on his own. I guess I don't understand your line of argument here.
I think murder is clearly defined from both points of view. A politician who supports murder should repent and work within his vocation to align his voting record with his stated confession.
Rob
Anon@3:26
You cannot be any further from the Biblical truth.
First of all. Matthew 19:8, read the surrounding context. The fact that you continued to "harp" that it was "taken out of context" speaks volumes to your lack of googling skills more than anything else.
Secondly, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BIBLICAL DIVORCE. God hates all divorce. Period. However, God, because of sinful man, has permitted (key word-permitted) divorce in certain situations. This does not mean God prefers or condones divorce.
Analogy-Does God love murder? No, but God does permit men to murder each other when self defense, war, etc is involved. This is not Biblical murder. This is a permission God has given so that men can live together in this state of sin.
You are confusing moral and civil law. They are not the same.
Again, it is morally reprehensible that men and women choose abortion but it is not our duty to legislate our morality.
Among all the anonymouses I am seeing one guy arguing from Christian and Lutheran doctrine and a bunch of people arguing from religious right/reformed doctrine.
Why abortion? Why is it the one moral high ground you're taking. What about the many other sins you could pin on either man. The problem with legislating morality is eventually you start to pick and choose which sins you are more concerned about.
God doesn't do such a thing.
SCHOTTEY IS DEAD ON.
He's really put the cap on this discussion.
There is no such thing as a Biblical divorce. There is no such thing as a Biblical murder. Both happen. In fact, if unfaithfulness is the one supposed legitimate justification for divorce then war is the one legit justification for murder. But actually divorce is divorce and murder is murder.
Schottey's correct about who's arguing this. All but one are marching right along with Washington's "Religious Right", Billy Graham et al.
The "This is God's Country" crowd are losers who have been spawned of Millenialistic poo. They believe that we must preserve the USA as some sort of Holy and Righteous helipad so that Jesus has somewhere to land when he comes back out of the sky. As far as I understand the current Millenialist theories, Jesus is going to use the USA as Command Central until we wupp heretic ass in the middle east and clean the apostates from Jerusalem.
Did you know that most nations on earth have thought that their country is God's country? THIS IS NOT GOD'S COUNTRY. This is a particular country that God has allowed to exist for a (as yet unknown) period of time. God has blessed Christians with freedom from persecution, for a time. He's given us wealth, for a time. Get my point yet?
America is (and always was) a secular country. If murder abortion divorce married faggots oil stealing bomb dropping propaganda spreading rape fraud genocide theft and gluttony are in the best interest of a World power they WILL DO ALL THOSE THINGS>>>>REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTE. Your vote means far less than you think. You can't change a thing. All that crap has been decided already--by God or and invention of God's: fate
Read War and Peace.
You'll grow up...I promise.
Actually, an abortion necessary to save the mother's life (actual life, not "health") is Scriptural. (A medical example would be an ectopic pregnancy, which is not viable and extremely dangerous.) WELS has actually issued statements on this.
How about a new topic on Mark Jeske's establishing "Time of Grace" as an official LCMS-affiliate?!
Is he on the way out of WELS voluntarily? If not, should he soon be involuntarily?
>>>Deuteronomy 24:1-5 deals specifically with divorce. It lays out some conditions for divorce. Note that the GOVERNMENT is not involved in the process of divorce.<<<
Umm, who wrote Deuteronomy? Oh yeah, Moses, who was the leader of the government. Thus, the government established laws allowing for divorce. Who cares if the certificate was written by the husband? It was still legally permissible and legally binding.
>>>This is a punishment for sin! This is God giving the rebellious children of Israel over to their sins. <<<
Wait a second here. You say we should interpret more difficult passages using easier passages. But that's not what you're doing. You're reading one easy passage into another easy passage. Jesus doesn't say anything about divorce being allowed as a punishment. He simply says that Moses allowed divorce because the hard-hearted people were getting divorces. That's pretty simple.Jesus says nothing about punishment. You're conflating two passages in order to distort them. So much for dealing with passages in context, huh?
>>>Moses was not acting on his own here. He was carrying out God's will in giving over a sinful people to their wickedness.<<<
Again, nothing in context says this! You have to bring in other passages from Romans to make the verses in question say this. That's bad interpretation.
>>>First, I do not think Mark 10 in any way establishes a principle that "they will do it anyway, so let's regulate it for their own good." When read in the context of Romans 1, it has a much different meaning.<<<
Once again, this is faulty interpretation. There's no reason to read Mark 10 in the context of Romans 1. AS you admit, doing so gives a much different meaning than the meaning of the text itself.
Now, if Deuteronomy or Mark talked about Moses allowing divorce as punishment, then applying Romans would be appropriate. But since nothing in context relates to Romans, it is improper to bring it in just to make those passages say what you want them to say.
From the way you write, it seems that you are a fellow WELS pastor. Frankly, it scares me a bit that a WELS pastor would engage in such blatantly poor Biblical interpretation, conflating proof passages to make passages say something they don't.
>>>As such, Christians are not voting to impose theocracy when we vote for pro-life candidates and refuse to support pro-choice candidates.<<<
Yes, we are trying to impose a theocracy when our only criterion when voting is how close a candidate is to what the Bible says.
>>>If that rule of law (i.e. the constitution) outlines a process for passing laws, with some limits on what the government can legislate, there is absolutely no sin or violation of doctrine in a Christian voter or lawmaker working to overturn legalized abortion.<<<
Who ever said that is was sinful to overturn abortion laws?!? I never did.
My only point is that we try to overturn abortion law not because it conflicts with the revealed law (Scripture), but because it conflicts with the natural law. Like I've said a million times before, trying to enforce Scriptural morality through governmental law is a violation of the distinction between law and gospel and between the two kingdoms.
And, as I've asked a million times before, how exactly do you determine which Scriptural laws you're going to push to enforce through the government? If your faulty interpretation is correct, and legalized divorce is a direct punishment from God, then shouldn't Christians only vote for people who want to criminalize divorce? Let's go a step farther. Shouldn't Christians only vote for people who want to criminalize cursing and swearing? Shouldn't Christians only vote for people who want to criminalize having lustful thoughts? Isn't that the logical result of your position?
>>>To take your jargon and describe it as "natural law,"<<<
My jargon? Every 7th grader who's been in Catechism class for a week or two knows that the law is written on our hearts and in God's Word. Don't you agree?
>>>And the government in charge of enforcing "natural laws" thinks murder is more serious than theft as indicated by the length and severity of punishment assigned to each.<<<
Yes, exactly! The government goes by natural law, and thus considers some sins more serious than others. But if we want to enforce God's Word through governmental law, then we have to criminalize and punish every sin exactly the same--which people here aren't willing to admit because it makes their position look foolish.
Wow, after reading through these comments I'm convinced that the WELS needs to do a comprehensive study on the doctrine of the two kingdoms. I can't believe how many people are confused about and even offended by what the Bible and Luther teach about the difference between government and church. Only Michael Schottey and one anonymous poster seem to understand it. It looks like most people have been subtly (or in some cases not-so-subtly) infected by American Evangelical teaching. American Evangelicalism has destroyed our understanding of worship, of the holy ministry, of the two kingdoms. What else are they going to destroy? I'm convinced that the majority of people in the WELS, whether they know it or not, are Evangelicals. That's pretty to clear to me after seeing so many people getting offended here by the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms.
I'm the one who just posted. I should clarify that I DO believe that abortion OTHER than in those situations clearly violates natural law as well as Scriptural law. The same could be said with respect to murder: killing in self-defense or as a soldier under orders is also both naturally and Scripturally permissible.
I believe that a politician who votes in favor of completely unrestricted abortion 100% of the time with no exception (as Ron Kind does--he has a 100% NARAL rating and a 0% Right-to-Life rating) can clearly be said to be violating the natural law.
If that politician who violates the natural law in that manner also happens to be a Christian, he is a Christian in violation of God's Law as well--and here I do NOT (directly) mean God's injunction not to kill. He is not fulfilling his duty as a government official; not performing as God describes the government should in Romans 13.
Therefore, such a Christian who is a member of our fellowship should be subject to church discipline in an attempt to call him to repentance.
Sorry been away for a while. To respond to the "are you serious" and the Luther quote. I am dead serious. You can always find a Luther quote to please. There was no separation of church & state under Luther. Luther had the state depose Karlstadt from his congregation. Luther wrote "Against the Jews & Their Lies" and the Jews were expelled from Electoral Saxony. Even the WLQ had an op ed inwhich a Prof sited with approval how the government fined parents of children who skipped catechism or did not do their memory work. Who ever thinks Luther wanted separation of church & state must have slept though Church History class. Again this is an example of declaring a doctrine and then finding a Luther quote to support it. You see this on church & ministry issues on all sides of the fence. Luther taught that it was not the job of the church to suppress Anabaptists, that was the government's job. Yet again I must say that all this talk is irrelevant. A politician will support the policies of wherever his money comes from - either the DMC or the NRP.
It seems to me that when the WELS has a chance of having one of its members (and by extension, the WELS itself) obtaining some kind of secular power or glory, EXCEPTIONS are almost always made.
Voting record on abortion? Immaterial!!! The doctrine of the two kingdoms!!!
The same holds true for the synod itself....EXCEPTIONS are always made for key members and large donors. Someone wants to divorce their first wife to marry the secretary? Why, scriptural divorce !!!
The doctrine of fellowship must never be violated....unless it involves receiving money from an organization that also funds ELCA and other Lutheran synods besides the WELS...
But if you are just some regular Joe or Jane in the pew, watch your p's and q's or the wrath of the most Holy WELS will descend upon you!!!!
But you have to remember that Luther lived in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, in which all governmental leaders also served as church leaders, much like Moses once did. Thus, when governmental leaders, for example, disciplined parents of lazy Catechism students, they essentially were exercising their churchly power, not their secular government power.
Those are the muddled circumstances in which Luther lived and worked and wrote. But it's important also to remember that when talking generally and hypothetically about government, Luther favored a distinct separation between the two kingdoms. In fact, several of our American forefathers directly cited Luther as the inspiration for the separation of church and state.
"Every 7th grader who's been in Catechism class for a week or two knows that the law is written on our hearts and in God's Word. Don't you agree?
I have said as much. I did not have the blessing of growing up Lutheran and even my "catechism" was a WELS Bible information class. So, I confess, my knowledge of Lutheran terminology and understanding of doctrines such as the two kingdoms is certainly limited.
I am not supporting the Calvinistic approach to trying to bring about the Kingdom of God here on earth by Old Testament Law enforcement through our political system. My point has only been the same: abortion is murder and should be legally opposed by all Christians, including our elected officials. If that is defined as natural law, I'm fine with it.
Thanks for the discussion.
Rob
Rob,
Again, I agree with you that abortion is entirely 100% wrong by God's standards and it is horrible that our culture in America thinks differently.
My biggest problem as I personally consider my vote is not a sin vs. grace debate but rather who is best for the country debate.
If we debate sins, then (as I've said before) you have to worry about which sins you want to worry about. Is war-hawking any more or less scriptural? What about all the financial greed etc?
You can never select the candidate who sins more or less or whose vote is more or less God pleasing. Abortion may be a gross sin, but it is not any more sinful than lying, greed, selfishness, etc.
>>>In fact, several of our American forefathers directly cited Luther as the inspiration for the separation of church and state.<<<
Which founding father(s) are you speaking of here? In years of studying early American government, I have never once come across a "founding father" who ever quoted Luther about anything. If you know of one specifically, I'd be very interested in the reference.
I'm not entirely sure it is correct to suggest that the founders, as a group, believed in separation of church and state as such. Certainly Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin did (Deists all), but I don't think it is a clear cut with Washington, Henry, Mason, Adams, and others. I suppose it depends on who you consider to be "founding fathers."
Moreover, separation essentially meant disestablishment or the end of an official state church. If you read the second amendment carefully, that's just about all it does. I don't even think that most of the founders ever envisioned a "separation" that some liberals imagine today--where faith has zero role in politics or public life.
>>>You can never select the candidate who sins more or less or whose vote is more or less God pleasing. Abortion may be a gross sin, but it is not any more sinful than lying, greed, selfishness, etc.<<<
I am perplexed by your statement. By this standard, there would be no room at all for considering character, of which I would have to say faith is a part, when considering candidates. I'd suggest a book called "Washington: The Indispensable Man" by James Thomas Flexner. The "Father of his Country" considered character and moral standing to be perhaps the most important qualification for holding public office.
Are all sins really equal? Are there not mortal and so-called venial sins (i.e. willful sins and sins of weakness)? We all sin, but should we put a politician who tries to redefine sin or actively campaigns against important principles of our faith (sanctity of life) in office or vote and maybe campaign against him or her?
I'm not saying anything about establishing a church-run state, which would be a terrible violation of doctrine. I'm simply talking about using our constitutionally granted power as voters and citizens in office to effect policy that agrees with what, at our very cores, we believe on public policy issues.
Personally, I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. My conscience simply will not allow me to do so. I would also refuse to support a candidate who wanted to establish a state church or church state.
>>>I have never once come across a "founding father" who ever quoted Luther about anything. If you know of one specifically, I'd be very interested in the reference.<<<
I don't have most of my reference material in front of me, but I do have access to one quote from James Madison (who wrote the Constitution, by the way). Madison wrote that "the genius and courage of Luther led the way between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God."
>>>I'm simply talking about using our constitutionally granted power as voters and citizens in office to effect policy that agrees with what, at our very cores, we believe on public policy issues.<<<
Umm, who ever said that we shouldn't vote to effect policy that agrees with what we believe on public policy issues? The whole point, though, is that public policy issues and religious issues are not the same thing and should not be confused.
LOL,
I think I will vote for Mussoline because he will make the trains run on time.
Yeah, there's that little moral problem but it will be best for the nation....
>>>I don't have most of my reference material in front of me, but I do have access to one quote from James Madison (who wrote the Constitution, by the way). Madison wrote that "the genius and courage of Luther led the way between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God."<<<
Interesting. Madison was indeed one of the primary creators of the constitution and bill of rights,and this sounds like something he would say, though Madison's definition of "god" would be a far cry from Luther's. If you find the exact reference, let me know.
>>>The whole point, though, is that public policy issues and religious issues are not the same thing and should not be confused.<<<
Really? I need some help then. Can you please explain to me how one goes to the voting booth and sets aside all they they hold most dear--the most important part of themselves--in faith and pulls the lever? Is there some process you have to go through to temporarily kill your faith before going to the polling place? Do you unbaptize yourself? How do you stop being a Christian in one aspect of your life (political)? I don't think there can be any honest answer to this question aside from what Paul writes in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."
And what Christ says in Mark 8:39--"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."
I doubt anyone here wants a state-church (e.g. the Church of England) or church-state (e.g. Calvin's Geneva). Many, I think, cannot help but vote their conscience when so-called public policy issues intersect with issues of faith (abortion being one). Many, I think, also want representatives (key word--one who represents the voter) who will do the same in elected office.
I think the point I've been trying to make (my entire adult life) is that just because a person in pro-life or pro-choice, doesn't mean they'll have any effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States each year.
How many Christians vote party line Republican because of social issues. Is your county commissioner really going to effect the abortion issue?
How about a Republican governor? Is he going to overturn a federal law? We might see in the next few months if Rick Perry gets his way.
On top of that, Politics are Politics. We already have a WELS member in political spotlight--Michele Bachmann (R-MN). How awesome has she been?! She started her national career by denouncing WELS teaching!
Since then, she's engaged in lying, slander, and other niceties Jesus wouldn't be so proud of.
Yet she was the best choice because she's pro-life? No. Politicians are (for the most part) one thing and one thing only pro-career.
Abortions in the US were at a all-time high BEFORE Roe V. Wade and have trended downward ever since, no matter who was in office or who was in control of congress.
The pro-life issue is just a piece in the political chess match. On a day to day basis, the religious right is hardly lobbying pro-life issues.
Read "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet, it shows the real face of the "religious" right-a group of people who've distorted Christianity. We would shudder to be aligned with ANY of them, yet as pro-lifers, they were probably supported by many confessional Lutherans.
Schottey,
>>On top of that, Politics are Politics. We already have a WELS member in political spotlight--Michele Bachmann (R-MN). How awesome has she been?! She started her national career by denouncing WELS teaching!
Since then, she's engaged in lying, slander, and other niceties Jesus wouldn't be so proud of.<<
You have no room to talk. Remember the eighth commandment.
If Michele Bachmann had a good name to defend, I would defend it. Otherwise, respond to Schottey's points rather than ducking and weaving with the 8th commandment.
Another one who despises the 8th commandment -- like you can sit in judgment of Michele Bachmann and others.
Is that you Schottey pretending to be anonymous? If you do not want to obey God's commandments, why are you on this blog?
I think this subject has run its course. How about the direction (or lack of it) our synod is heading? Are we not heading to a future of navel gazing? Some seem to be flirting with a form of determinism.
Just shout'in
Hahahahahahaha
Anon@1:51
You are a funny one.
First, I've never pretended to be anonymous. I have nothing to hide from and no one to hide to.
Michele Bachmann has tarnished her good name of her own accord. I spoke only truth about her anyone of you could have googled.
I do not despise the eight commandment, however I do think that it is the shelter for those who can't think of a better comeback.
I spoke of openly public acts of an openly public figure. It was not here-say or gossip. As anon@10:35 said, she has sullied her good name by herself.
If anything, it is WELS members who should be ashamed she is known as the WELS congresswomen. (especially known as one who denies one of her church's teachings)
However, it is very awesome, that as you call me out for 8th commandment breakage you immediately assume the worse.
Dr. Luther would not be proud--"best construction" and all.
That's another hallmark of the "8th commandment" shouting set. They only think it applies when someone says something they disagree with.
While you're looking for something in my eye, perhaps you might want to do something about that plank.
And still, as much as you'd love to debate the (truthful) remark about Bachmann. The fact still remains. She, and almost all politicians are intensely loyal to one thing--their career.
The higher their office, the more they are paid to have opinions, and the more their opinion is based on party affiliation.
If you pick one (or two) points of political discourse and base your entire world-view on those and those alone, you are going to pick some pretty crappy candidates.
But, then again, it's your vote, do what you want. (Just don't think you're picking "God's candidate" cause that's bad theology)
Elected officials approving and upholding divorce, abortion and homosexuality in the civil law has brought great order to our society?
Right!
Anon at 7:28, (aka "Red Herring")
Who's said that?
WELS membership should be irrelevant to all Christian voters. The "higher powers" of Romans 13:1 are the U.S. Constitution and its system of law. The U.S. Constitution says there can be no religious test for office. Christian voters cannot be in rebellion by applying a religious test.
Only born or naturalized citizens have their rights protected by the constitution. The government may lawfully have its agents kill the unborn or wage unjust wars against foreigners. Although these actions are against God's revealed will and sinful, the Christian citizen must not resist them by unconstitutional means. Constitutional means include free speech, assembly, and voting.
Should WELS members publicly support the right of government agents to kill the unborn or to engage in unjust wars? I don't think so. However, the Book of Concord does not directly address these issues of government. Therefore, affected WELS congregations should carefully consider whether or not these unprofitable opinions actually constitute public sin.
Hitler got Germany back to work and restored national pride.
Many good Lutherans voted for Hitler in the 1932/1933 elections in Germany. Yes, Hitler was democratically elected.
Many good Lutherans willingly served Hitler, indeed praised Hitler.
Sure, in the later part of the war there may have been some criticism, but that was because Germany was LOSING, not because of any fundamental disagreement with Hitler's policy.
Moral of the story: Vote for the candidate that is "best" for the country and forget about any moral issues....
Geesh, where is the critical thinking in the WELS? Too much like lemmings in my opinion.....
>>>Michele Bachmann has tarnished her good name of her own accord. I spoke only truth about her anyone of you could have googled.<<<
If that is your source of truth, you are delusional. Is that what your WELS education taught you?
Anon@3:54
Where are you going with this? You're not even arguing. You're just picking some inconsequential points and trying to play the 8th Commandment Card---and doing a GREAT job of upholding it yourself. (Anonymously, of course).
My source of truth is, and always will be, scripture. I fail to see how repeating facts of a public figure fits anywhere in "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Again, do you have anything of use to say, or rather would you like to pick another sentence to dance around the point with?
The fact remains, I would never encourage a Christian to go against their conscience to vote for someone who supports Abortion. But there are plenty of other sins politicians commit, and we should not act as if every "Christian" candidate is blameless and pure.
Enough pontification. Start reasoning if you want to engage in argument. No one cares about your opinion.
Returning to the original topic: "Will a WELS pastor lead the state legislature in prayer?
If my wife doesn't follow my lead and vote for my WELS candidate of choice is she sinning?"
A Christian pastor should offer prayers "for all in authority." However, he must never compromise his confession or establish a Christian religion contrary to the ruling power (i.e., U.S. Constitution).
Requiring your wife to vote for your WELS candidate of choice is a two fold rebellion against the powers ordained by God. First, the U.S. Constitution forbids any religious test for any office. Second, the Constitution establishes independent voting and citizen rights for women. When a women votes, she is under the authority of the ruling powers (system of state and federal law) not under the authority of her husband.
I believe a wife should be required to
#1 ask permission IF she may vote and
#2 ask her husband's advice (i.e., who to vote for) about candidates.
Women were not created to be leaders of society and therefore should only have a symbolic role in suffrage. If a women doesn't want to usurp her husband's authority she really probably should vote the same as her husband.
Just because the US constitution and laws pretends that women are basically men with vaginas, doesn't mean it's the case. They just shouldn't have any part of government. (Why do think our country is falling apart? Women have sneaked into every facet of leadership in this country)
Don't get me wrong ladies, there are plenty of things women were created to do that men should have no part of. Women are equal to men, just different.
Post a Comment