Question For Show: Safeguarding Against Activists?

[Jason]

I see a lot of language about "fighting for our rights" but I'm not sure what that looks like. Does it mean we complain more in the public square? Or hold more protests? Or just elect the right people into office? Has it failed to be strange to us that God's grand idea for conquering the world was Christ laying down his life for it? Are we now immune to the beautiful and peculiar way in which God "fought" to get what He wanted by sacrificing Himself?

I don't think our game plan for spreading the gospel is any different today than it was 2,000 years ago. Whether it's the gay community calling us evil or ISIS sawing our heads off, our collective response is still, "Is that all you can do?" The book "Son of Hamas" exemplifies this ideal and shows what it takes to change a darkened heart. Mosab Yousef was a militant Islamist who became a Christian after discovering that the love of Christ was the game changer. He'd seen every other way fail to bring peace among his people and it was Christ's peculiar way that hooked him. Christ laid down his life for us, so we go and do likewise. I think we win by serving, not conquering.

I will confess that I don't like the idea of being rejected. But Kingdom people have been doing it with a smile since 33AD.

[thrombomodulin]

Jason,

Would you agree that one can adopt both strategies at the same time? I am thinking that one can extend love to sinners through personal relationships, while at the same time requesting of the State that it refrain from harming believers. It is my opinion that "fighting for rights" is a good thing for Christians to do - when the context is that citizens are asking their rulers to leave them alone. I think homeschooling is a good example. Not long ago this was illegal in parts of the USA. However, thanks to the efforts of some Christians, the legality of it has now been established throughout the USA. I think this type of "fighting for rights" was appropriate for believers. Do you agree?

If I am correctly informed, the State did not require or issue marriage licenses throughout most of Western history. It seems to me that it was a mistake for Christians to have entrusted the government with licensing this institution, as it has become mainly a vehicle for the State to manipulate the culture by using it as a means to allocate various material benefits. I have been wondering if it would be prudent for Christians to advocate a return to the older state of affairs where marriage is only a religious affair - and seeking that the State abolish marriage licensing altogether.

In so far as further developments in the compulsory acceptance of homosexuality are required, I would like to ask about 1 Timothy 2:1-2. It says

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence

Is it fair to interpret the italicized part as indicating that believers were to pray that the State would not interfere with their lives? If so, it would seem reasonable inference that political action towards that objective (e.g. by using the courts) is also appropriate given the nature of the political system that now exists.

Thanks,
Pete

[BrotherAlan]

TheEditor,
While I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and that the Mystical Body of Christ subsists in (and actually is) the Catholic Church-- and, thus, it is through and in the Catholic Church that the Kingdom of Christ is realized on this earth in its fullness-- nevertheless, my point in bringing out now that Christ, as King, deserves homage is to alert all of us, whether we are, right now, Catholic or not, to realize that the fight that we are entering into (against the pro-death, pro-Sodomite forces) is not so much for OUR rights as it is for the rights of Christ, our King. The details on how that Kingdom is to appear on this earth is another story (and, like I said, there are various legitimate ways in which a society can recognize Christ as King-- but, in whatever way it is done, recognize Him as such is a duty of a state/people)...right now, for all of us, as Christians, it simply means fighting, for the sake of Christ our King, the forces which are forcing this immoral world-view on our whole culture-- a fight that is done not with physical weapons, but with spiritual ones (prayer, fasting, penance, etc.).

God bless...

In Christ Our King,
BrotherAlan

[Paidion]

Could the legally-recognized change in the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex "marriage" be but the beginning of a slippery slope?

Might future forms of legal "marriage" also include bigamy, trigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and group "marriage"? And perhaps a number of other forms of "marriage" which have not yet been even imagined?

[BrotherAlan]

Paidion--
Your point brings up exactly one other very real problem with this whole homosexual activitists' movement (and Supreme Court decision)-- and, following in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, things like polygamy are actually already being pushed. See, for example, this popular article which is pushing polygamy now as the next step following on the Supreme Court's decision: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ZoRqhtVhHw

Of course, anyone with any sort of vision could see this coming a mile away. As the author of the article on the link states, there's no real reason to be for so-called gay "marriage", while, at the same time, being against polygamy (and, he is right on that-- in fact, polygamy is not even as bad or unnatural as gay "marriage"; it's much closer to being natural than is gay "marriage"...unless, of course, we are talking about polygamy which involves homosexual activity, which, now that I think about it, the modern polygamy, or "group marriage", as they are now trying to call it, could entail). This author very astutely points out to his progressive/morally liberal comrades that, if the acceptance of gay love demanded we accept gay marriage, then the acceptance of group love must demand we accept "group marriage" (i.e., polygamy). I could also see scenarios involving so-called "bi-sexuals" who claim that they need to marry one partner from each sex in order to satisfy their needs-- given the Supreme Court's decision here, I see no reason why such persons would be denied this desire. Given the principle that "all loves need to be accepted"-- a patently false principle (eg., the love of adulterers is bad), but one that seems to be accepted as self-evidently true by the moral liberals of our day-- I see no reason why those who accept gay "marriage" would deny any kind of sexual union between any persons, no matter the number or sex...it's all a disaster, it's complete madness (as even one Russian lawmaker pointed out-- Russia has her own problems, but at least Russians have their heads on straight with regard to this same-sex union issue).

So, anyways, yes, it's most certain that polygamy is but one more landmark on this slippery slope, a slope on which we really started to slide with the advent of the movement which pushed divorce, then contraception, then abortion, now homosexual activity, etc....Once marriage is no longer seen as being a life-long bond between one man and one woman for the sake of generating and educating offspring, then, eventually, anything goes...any sexual aberration becomes acceptable....and we are witnessing this first-hand in our western world right now...a world gone, quite literally, crazy with lust. May God have mercy on us, sinners.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[BrotherAlan]

Jason wrote:

I see a lot of language about "fighting for our rights" but I'm not sure what that looks like. Does it mean we complain more in the public square? Or hold more protests? Or just elect the right people into office? Has it failed to be strange to us that God's grand idea for conquering the world was Christ laying down his life for it? Are we now immune to the beautiful and peculiar way in which God "fought" to get what He wanted by sacrificing Himself?

I don't think our game plan for spreading the gospel is any different today than it was 2,000 years ago. Whether it's the gay community calling us evil or ISIS sawing our heads off, our collective response is still, "Is that all you can do?" The book "Son of Hamas" exemplifies this ideal and shows what it takes to change a darkened heart. Mosab Yousef was a militant Islamist who became a Christian after discovering that the love of Christ was the game changer. He'd seen every other way fail to bring peace among his people and it was Christ's peculiar way that hooked him. Christ laid down his life for us, so we go and do likewise. I think we win by serving, not conquering.

I will confess that I don't like the idea of being rejected. But Kingdom people have been doing it with a smile since 33AD.

On the whole, I agree with this. Our Lord promised that we would be persecuted and hated by the world, even as He was (and the servant is not greater than the Master), and so we need to be prepared for such hardships, persecutions, even imprisonment and death, if necessary. And this persecution will come when we simply proclaim the Gospel to the world-- a Gospel that some will accept, so as to be saved, while others will reject, and often with vehemence and anger, and so will take out that anger by persecuting the messengers, i.e., Christians, even as Christ was persecuted. So, we expect hardships. At the same time as we endure this, we desire to build a society in which the citizens acknowledge Christ as King and give Him due homage-- that may mean getting involved politically. So, I think a combination of fighting with natural weapons (eg., political action) and, above all, supernatural weapons (eg., prayer, fasting, penance, enduring hardships for the sake of preaching the Gospel) is what is involved in "fighting for the rights" of Christ the King.

In Christ, the King,
BrotherAlan

[Jason]

Would you agree that one can adopt both strategies at the same time? I am thinking that one can extend love to sinners through personal relationships, while at the same time requesting of the State that it refrain from harming believers. It is my opinion that "fighting for rights" is a good thing for Christians to do - when the context is that citizens are asking their rulers to leave them alone. I think homeschooling is a good example. Not long ago this was illegal in parts of the USA. However, thanks to the efforts of some Christians, the legality of it has now been established throughout the USA. I think this type of "fighting for rights" was appropriate for believers. Do you agree?

Yes, I would agree with this. But in many parts of the world, "fighting for our rights" means something very different. I have a Christian friend who said he would take up arms against the government if they became tyrannical. He's actually a nice, caring person but claims he would spill blood over having his Christian rights taken away. And that's a common sentiment where I reside (in the southeastern US). While you may find that extreme and ineffective for the cause of Christ, I would say the same about holding protest signs in front of the supreme court. Those who oppose Christians will end up winning over the hearts and minds of the masses so long as we fall into their traps (which we keep doing).

Remember how Christ maneuvered when people tried to trap him? They would always set up a false dichotomy to make him look bad and he would always outsmart his foes by choosing not to take to the bait. When asked whether Jews should pay taxes or not, he borrowed a coin and flipped the question around on his inquisitor. When a man shouted for Jesus to take his side in a dispute with his brother, He said, "Beware of greed." Jesus avoided getting caught by letting the questioner fall into his own trap. We might have more success if we did the same.

When I'm asked whether I agree with marriage equality or the oppressive biblical view, I ask why the question is important to them. When they say, "Because I believe in standing for equality and taking up for the oppressed," I can truthfully respond by saying, "You and Jesus have that in common." Notice that this kind of response sidesteps the whole trap and says something true about Jesus instead of taking the cheese. The questioner who was laying a trap for me may walk away thinking I agree with them on gay marriage, but people will always hear what they want to hear. Nevertheless, I have upheld the character of Jesus by stating something true about him, while not taking the bait of the false dichotomy.

Citing 1 Timothy 2:1-2:

Is it fair to interpret the italicized part as indicating that believers were to pray that the State would not interfere with their lives? If so, it would seem reasonable inference that political action towards that objective (e.g. by using the courts) is also appropriate given the nature of the political system that now exists.

Yes, but fighting to ban gay marriage isn't the same as requiring the government not to persecute Christians. Many see the gay marriage ruling as the first step toward that end but we've already lost the culture war because of a failure to avoid these traps (as I mention above). Christians have taken the bait of the false dichotomy and now we look stupid for playing the enemy's game. However, the thing about western culture is that it's incredibly fickle and public opinion shifts with the wind. I'm optimistic because of this. Instead of spending all of our energy on the legal system, we should spend the majority of our time cleaning up the church to give a broken and confused world a real alternative. We can address gay marriage (and the like) only after we've addressed the church's own internal problems of greed and immorality. Until then, our voice will get lost in the clamor.

[TheEditor]

Hi Jason,

I tend to agree with you. I can't really see an example of the first century Christians engaged in anything like we see some doing today. One could argue that they lacked the freedom to redress the government, and site Paul's appeal to Caesar as proof that Christians should use the government to serve their own ends; but even Paul's use of his rights as a Roman citizen could not compare to the activism we see in many Christian circles today.

Peter gives us the admonishment to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15), so we are told to give a reason for our hope for those that inquire. I see nothing in the Epistles or Jesus' words that suggests any kind of activism or anything that would agitate. I could and would say the same for Christians that protest against going to war because they are Pacifists. We are called to live our lives the way we should, that is all.

Regards, Brenden.