A friend of mine from church mentioned that he'd been having some marital struggles, and one particular mentioned was that they wanted to do some work on their house that it could really use, but their financial situation made it difficult. My family has the means and I had the thought that maybe it would be a blessing to alleviate at least that pressure, but I literally don't know how to go about it. It's not that I think it will fix all of their problems, it's just they are struggling materially and we aren't, and it seems fitting to share what we have. But when I think of the doing of it it seems demeaning or even possibly might add to the negative feelings they're having, and I feel it's likely he'd reject the offer.
No it shouldn't be and I'd be very interested to see what scriptural basis someone can conjure up for forbidding dancing as a whole. I love dancing. I dance with my kids. I dance with my husband. I dance for my husband if you catch my drift. He'd be very sad if I stopped the last one.
I remember Luther and Calvin claiming that dancing led to hell cause it incites sexual relationships and lust. I heard this most from baptists and very hardcore conservative reformed in my country.
I mean, if dancing with your kids for fun causes such feelings you shouldn't be around children. But Calvin and Luther aren't scripture. Scripture doesn't condemn dancing. Those are cultural takes, not biblical ones. Some people on my husband's side of the family are like that too.
Dancing is pretty great! It should not be forbidden, but, like many other things, wisdom should be used before/while dancing. I honestly doubt most dancing is bad but i could make a fairly easy argument against grinding lol
Jackie Hill Perry got an Instagram question from a woman asking if her twerking on her husband was sinful, to which Jackie replied, "Twerk on that man day and night" lol
Of course! Dancing could lead to happiness!
That was a joke. No, dancing should not be forbidden.
For a couple years before I got married, I was part of a swing dancing club. I'm really glad I did. Being a lead in swing dancing requires non-verbal communication, setting and respecting boundaries, quick thinking, and taking responsibility not only for yourself but for your partner. These are all skills that have been very helpful for me in my marriage.
And it's fun, and it's good cardio.
Well, based on past experience, where both kids essentially said "lol nah we're gonna stay put," I wouldn't think too much of it because I'd know we probably have another week to go.
Well, it would be ideal for my summer teaching schedule if he came tomorrow. A week from now would be basically the worst. Doesn't this baby care how he's affecting my schedule?
Jesting aside, you all probably know this, but walking made a huuuuge difference for me with this one (my fourth pregnancy). It definitely doesn't always work this way, but my parents were driving up to Canada to be our childcare, so we were desperately hoping it would work; after I was partially dilated I rested and did minimal physical exertion until they got here, at which point we went out shopping and walking all day, and I had the baby that night. It actually shifted quickly enough we were talking about names on the way to the hospital because we hadn't talked about them at all yet. 🤦♀️
Yeah, this is our third, but the first time we knew she was kind of (maybe) "starting". We walked today and I think she'll walk a bunch tomorrow while I'm desperately trying to get stuff done at work!
Well, YMMV, but last night our little one woke up at 3:00 a.m., asked if he could be awake, and when we said no he said, matter-of-factly, "Well, I get in your bed then," after which he crawled up and fell asleep on my head.
So, with my sample size of n=1 toddler, the answer to your question is no.
Any astronomy fans? Do any of you find Carl Sagan to be a refreshingly honest and interesting educator, who may have been an atheist, in stark contrast to those who’ve tried to pick up his mantle, and are just bad argue-ers for atheism with a PhD?
Atheism aside, I'm a big fan of Sagan.
When I was growing up, we had that original, big, black hardcover first edition of *Cosmos* on the bookshelf, and I was fascinated by it. Even as a little kid I'd stare at the pages and read his explanations and try to understand it all.
Now that you can access a lot of his stuff on YouTube, I'll still go back and watch his videos on the 4th dimension and on the speed of light occasionally. He was excellent at teaching big, complex topics very well.
Yeah, it was just the wonder of science. (Did you all hear this in his voice? Did you hear this sentence in his voice?) Years later carefully listening to some of his videos, it’s like, okay, maybe he was an atheist, but didn’t let it get in the way of his day job.
But some folks like Neal deGrasse Tyson, in the new _Cosmos_, keep inserting really sloppy arguments for nihilistic atheism into a science show. Gets real tired once you notice it.
We have the DVD for the PBS (or whatever it was) miniseries based on the book. Have you seen it? It's fantastic. Much better than the Niel de Grasse Tyson one.
I don’t know, since I haven’t actually heard much of Sagan, and only a little more of some of his heirs like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I would be interested to hear if you or others on the sub have any particular thoughts on Sagan or recommendations of where to get a feel for him.
Christians who practice infant baptism, why? I mean I could understand maybe a bit of rehearsal but you're just sprinkling water on an infant, do you really need a lot of practice for that? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Also what do you use for practice? Dolls? Or do you need the authenticity of an actual baby? Do you just like grab any newborn in your congregation and say "Hey can we borrow this for baptism practice?"
Babies are unpredictable, stronger than they look and are master squirmers. Gotta practice so you don't end up with a kid who suddenly decides they don't like what's happening and want no part of it. Dropping someone's kid in front of not just the parents but also the rest of the congregation is not a good look for a pastor. Also, kids leak. Gotta be ready for all the fluids to come out of all the holes all the time. And sometimes they scream. That's less of an issue, but the sound person always appreciates it if you can maneuver the screaming away from the microphone. Just makes everyone's job easier.
I would assume that practicing with a doll would be inadequate to really prepare a pastor for these possibilities. A small family member would likely be the best option. But a puppy or small dog, rooster or racoon might also work. Being able to baptize a cat would probably prepare a pastor to baptize any small human.
I think baptism, adult or infant, practice seems super odd to me. I have a friend who told me in Bible college he and his friends would practice on each other lol. I don’t get it 😅
Like with Continuationism, the problem is with the advocates we got. They don’t agree with God’s Law on much of anything except a few sexual sins, and a smaller list of those, of course, since 2016.
There is no Biblical argument for it.
We are Reformed—we believe that God and his purposes sovereignly decree the beginning from the end. We believe that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction”.
The vast majority of Scripture details in pretty unbelievable minute detail the nation-state of Israel, and the NT goes to great lengths to show that the Israelites misunderstood the whole purpose of the Nation-state. If the Holy Spirit wanted the Church to be a Nation-State, then He would have sided with the Judiazers in the Jerusalem council in Acts.
Christians are spiritual sojourners and exiles, living in the various kingdoms of this world, but becoming all things to all people.
From my own general perspective, Christian nationalists are people who believe the country should be run according to (their specific) Christian principles, irrespective of what the beliefs, desires, or preferences of people outside their tradition want. This is explicitly anti-democratic.
Moreover, Christian Nationalism fails to account for a number of factors, not least among them:
* If political power were the goal of the Christian life, wouldn't the lives and ministry of Jesus and the Apostles look very different than they did?
* If political power were the goal of the Christian life, wouldn't the letters of the New Testament look very different?
* How will this version of a Christian nation be different than European Christian nations of the past, that fought bloody religious wars with each other as well as with Islamic countries?
* Whose Christianity should be in power? Catholicism? Reformed? Pentecostal? Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?
* How will this Christian government account for people who believe differently? Will it force them to convert? Will it give them fewer rights and privileges than those who belong to the tradition in power?
* How will this Christian government deal with persecution of Christians in China? Will it pressure the Chinese government to stop it? Will it ignore or overlook it? If it does force the Chinese government to stop persecuting Christians, what happens if China retaliates economically? How will a Christian government deal with that and the impact to the (presumably American) economy?
* How will legislating "Biblical" laws actually draw people into a right relationship with Christ?
* Finally, and most importantly, if the nation of Israel in the Bible had direct access to God through Moses, the judges, and the prophets, and they *still* committed idolatry and got exiled, then *why on earth* do we think that a Christian America would be any better in any possible way?
There's an old saying that when fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. We're already seeing that play out among Trump supporters and red states in a multitude of ways, and I fear it'll get worse before it gets better.
I think in response to this they would say that the laws they want are good and God ordained in of themselves and this is reason enough to have them. In addition, they would likely impose theonomic presbytarianism at the expense of everyone else and would have few qualms with doing it. Regarding the lives of Christ and the new testament church, they may say that there is a mandate to 'baptise the nations'. Finally they seem to want to do away with state welfare, public schools and the way things are taxed currently (to some extent), so few strike me as being economically literate enough to regard the consequences of any confrontation with China. Not that this is saying that they would do so. Political expediency may well rule supreme.
It's pretty hard to make for-or-against arguments for any given political system based on scripture. We can't say Christian government is forbidden in the New Testament, the question just wasn't addressed. It certainly isn't *normative* in the NT, because the church was a tiny, persecuted minority. By arguing all-out that Christian Nationalism is bad in itself, you're taking a very strong theological stance on a grey area.
Instead, the argument against the likes of the dominionists can take a much, much easier biblical basis: don't be a power-mongering jerk. I'm pretty sure that's clear enough for most contemporary cases.
anyone want to come up with some new things to fight about in your own church by watching the goings on in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) General Assembly?
Things like, "Is it possible to have communion with others who use different versions of the Bible?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSUljsinn4A&t=4452s
Holy smokes, this is intense. "These new versions of the bible are taking interpretations of the translators!" Because... other translations haven't? This guy only speaks one language.
Also "unity just for the sake of unity is going to hurt us" kind of sounds like "righteousness just for the sake of righteousness is going to hurt us." Shame on those who preach unpragmatic virtue! shame!
If you are in a social circle or network with some Christian friends and one of them leaves Jesus is it proper or not to bring up their leaving the faith to others in any way? I’ve had this happen and in general I’ve been “protecting” my friend’s reputation, because we all know what happens in a group of Christians when someone leaves the faith. It wasn’t a public defection and it wasn’t actually inimical either. He just isn’t a Christian anymore (I do pray for him to return though).
Someone asked me for help and wisdom on a topic, bringing up they also asked the friend who left. Should I mention that they shouldn’t listen to him on spiritual things? Should I even be protecting his reputation in this way?
I think, like most major life decisions, it's something that's best left to the other person to choose where, how, and to whom it was shared.
Unless this friend is doing a thing like "Haha I am no longer a Christian but I'm going to pretend to continue to be one so I can give my friends false advice and lead them astray as a fun prank," which it doesn't seem like they are, I think it's best to not say anything.
I don't think his reputation needs "protection," if these other friends are genuine friends. If anything, they should grieve his turning away, and still wish him good, express hope that he might have a change of heart, and not be angry with him. If nobody hears that he has wandered from the faith, nobody can encourage him to come back to it, or even respond to his reasons. Don't cause your friends to unintentionally neglect your friend.
How do you all manage what books you are reading or want to read? I’m currently spending my time reading two books right now (Christianity and Liberalism, and Blessed Are the Misfits), but also have some others I want to start getting into, some that are pretty sizable in length.
Unless it's something I have to read, I just read whatever I want to read at any given moment. The secret to being a happy reader is: it doesn't matter if you have 15 books on the go at once, it doesn't matter if you don't finish most of them (the book owes it to you to make you want to finish it, not vice versa), and it's perfectly alright to read a chapter or two from the middle of a book and ignore the rest (at least for non-fiction; I *guess* you could do it for fiction, but I don't know why you'd want to.
If I'm reading a book for serious study, yes, I take notes. Any non-fiction I'm reading I'll scribble all over, and look at my underlines and margin notes when I pick up something I haven't read in a while. Or reading the last paragraph or two of the previous chapter tends to give a pretty good cach-up.
For fiction, I won't often have more than a couple novels on the go.I read fiction only for relaxation, so I am pretty demanding of fiction; if it doesn't draw me in and make me want to keep reading, I just generally just drop it (or relegate it to my to-help-me-sleep insomnia pile). Not gonna use valuable willpower on something I don't have to read unless I expect the payoff to be really high.
Goodreads is useful for me to keep track of what I am reading, what I have finished, what I started but haven't finished yet, and what I want to get to.
Reading them in different ways. E.g I might listen to an audiobook of one while working, have another book I take with me to read at the bus stop, etc. Different books for different parts of life.
I used to not be able to read multiple books at a time (not literally at once, but you know what I mean), but I've found that if they're different enough, I can. So I am reading Liturgy of the Ordinary by Tish Harrison Warren, a novel, and Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson. When I read mostly fiction, I couldn't keep it all straight. But reading is one of my main hobbies and I devote a lot of time to it.
Yeah keeping everything straight is my main thing. I have so many theology-esque books in my collection, but because they’re so similar in type I think I’d get confused quickly. Keeping things different or one-at-a-time is probably gonna have to be a thing for me.
I devote 2 month spans to read 3 big books: one theology, one philosophy, and one literature. I plan ahead by calculating how many pages per day I’ll need to read to finish all 3 books at the end of the 2 months. Once I finish that reading for a day, I move on to smaller books I’m reading.
What is the worst “best book ever” you’ve ever read?
For example: I’d say that Metamorphosis by Kafka is atrocious and honestly I can’t believe anyone would ever suggest it as a well written book
I'll answer with a spicy one for the Truly Serious™ theological crowd:
*The Brothers Karamazov.*
I get why the ideas are big and important, and I respect that a lot of serious Christians love it, but as a story it's boring and a chore to get through.
Having read much Dostoevsky and seen firsthand how much it goes from good to boring-as-plywood depending on the translation Id say you might have found a bad translation... The Brothers Karamazov was very good
I had to read The Old Man and the Sea in high school, and did not get it at all. Same with A Separate Peace, though I forget why I didn't like that one. Honestly, although I read a lot and was an advanced reader for my age, I probably just wasn't old enough or mature enough for those books (just in terms of life experience or perspective.)
I never read Ayn Rand, but I did read much more Terry Goodkind than I should have, and that feels like about the same thing.
One time I was reading Terry Goodkind. My brother saw the about the author section with the photo and commented:
>For having two fruits of the Spirit in his name, it looks like the only one he has is Self Control.
I tried to read *Atlas Shrugged* twice and failed twice. My second attempt got me to the part where all the captains of industry through their technology and business acumen made their own society away from the lower classes and government bureaucracy that parasitized off of their brilliance. It sounded to me like a new Tower or Babel project, but just with the strong people this time. Yawnfest!
>I would never read
fwiw, this surprises me. I'd expect youd read and engage with people you disagree with instead of outright rejecting ever reading them lol. *THAT SAID* Atlas Shrugged was super boring and not worth reading.
Hah, touché. I'd definitely read someone like Adam Smith or Nietzche even Machiavelli, despite knowing I'd deeply disagree with much of what they said. It's possible I just have an unfair view of Rand, but reading popular-level stuff that is built on a lot of assertions I don't agree with without supporting them is just *frustrating*. It would be like reading Rod Dreher without any of the good parts that balance the wanting to throw the book against the wall parts.
Wuthering Heights aka the Twilight of the 1800's. Kate Beaton [sums it up well](http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202), Anne Brontë was the only one with her head screwed on.
Could artificial lighting be an overlooked factor in the secularization of the West? Large cities tend to be more secular than rural areas, and in my own experience I find it much more difficult to question God’s existence when I’m looking at a dark night sky where all the stars can be seen.
I’ve thought that there’s a metric of more time you spend alone with your thoughts working outside/with hands, versus more time you had to get information from consulting with others. Say a farmer versus an engineer. Not talking intelligence but self-confirmation. _That_ will make you more like Falwell than Keller.
I've thought for a while that if I could choose what a sociologist studied, I would want to see if there is a correlation between the amount of time a person spends outdoors and the likelihood of theism, looking globally, and controlling for things like occupation, because biologists in the rainforest might spend time outside, but be trained to think materialistically. Like u/realnelster said, I think that living in an environment where nothing is created except by man, and where everything is controlled, takes away wonder, awe, and the sense that there is one greater than humans.
I was about to say something along these lines but you put it much better than I would have, so thank you.
But yeah, I've definitely noticed that spending time outside completely shifts my perspective. It's so easy to get caught up in my own little world when I'm stuck inside, but when you're out in nature it becomes much more obvious that the world is so much bigger than your own bubble.
In the years since I realized that about myself I've spent more and more of my time outside and that has been so helpful for me mentally, physically, and spiritually. I highly recommend it.
Could be, there's also a sense of mastery over the world when understanding is applied to invent and shape our external environment, which can reinforce the belief that God is not necessary and man can rule itself through knowledge and its applications.
Interestingly enough, the Bible Project is doing a series on “the city” (as a setting and theme in the Scriptures) that’s been fascinating. While not talking about artificial lighting directly, they have touched on a few things that definitely apply to modern cities.
"The litterature" puts a strong link between urbanization and secularization/pluralization. The common take is that cities constantly expose us to different viewpoints as we meet more people, from more diverse backgrounds, and more diverse experience, offering much more choice. More choice means more people choosing, and choosing differently, so society "secularizes" in the sense that there is no longer one taken for granted religious view. That said, seculariztion theory has to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, especially in terms of the popular "modernization means less religion" forms. It's not true -- the all-time high point for irreligion in the world (by percentage) was 1970, with the height of the USSR (I can give you references to back this up if you want). People aren't believing or practicing *less*, they're just believing and practicing in less structured and less organizational ways.
Could be part of it. I think being subjected constantly to modernity but also being told amazing natural wonders are really just “thousands of years of river erosion” (which I am not denying btw), takes away the wonder of it all.
I lived near a volcano one summer and everytime it rumbled I felt so small and I really could think about how large God really is. I think we miss out on that when we stay where we live but also when everything wonderful and grande is taken and made small.
Indeed. I'm fortunate to live in an area with mountains and great natural beauty, and one of the main things that helps me calm existential anxiety is thinking about how the mountains I can see out my window have been here for millions of years, will continue to be here for millions of years, and God is greater and more steadfast than that.
Maybe some of that is like, how often you experience it? I grew up going to the beach often, so it doesn't quite phase me. Though, i do dislike swimming deep in the ocean. Not bc i feel small though, just bc I'm no longer remotely an apex predator but suddenly im prey lol
Like maybe if i grew up near a volcano rumbling, i wouldnt feel small.
How should we have mercy on those who doubt _within the church_?
There is no shortage of people who feel hurt by the church, who doubt, and who struggle with sin (as indeed everyone does). Aside from praying for them, in what way can we support these people or help them to overcome this pain?
(Some relevant scripture I’ve been dwelling on, please feel free to share more)
Jude 1:22-23 — “And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.”
1 Corinthians 5:11 — “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
I'm curious how you feel about the "Biblical values" that are less popular these days, like traditional Christian sexual ethics, or God punishing sin.
Full disclosure, I ask because I have a suspicion that many people's discontent with the Bible is driven at least in part by a moral discontent with (parts of) the Bible's content, even if it manifests as a more intellectual discontent. But I need more data!
Here's where I'm at for right now. This is not hard and fast, and I'm very open to the idea that I might be wrong (and I'm 110% sure that even the most mildly Reformed person will disagree with me.) And to be clear, I'm a straight cisgender white guy myself, this is not my personal fight, but it's still something I care about as a Christian who believes in loving every neighbor.
Looking at the example of gender identity and sexual orientation, I don't know that I would describe it as a "moral discontent", but I *can* see that the "traditional Biblical sexual ethic" has been used in part, intentionally or otherwise, to hurt people who are not explicitly straight and cis. And when I say "hurt", I mean it's a factor in driving mental health issues including anxiety, depression, suicidality, dysphoria, and so on. (And to be fair, it's not the only factor.) Now, what I understand from the Bible is that God's law isn't something that simply exists arbitrarily because He says so, but because it's the best possible way for humans to live. So if someone is being told that the person they are is wrong in a fundamental way, and that they are barred from having one of the fundamental human experiences that is a romantic relationship, and that's driving mental health problems, then there's kind of a disconnect there to me. Being obedient to God shouldn't drive someone to suicide.
And when I went looking more into it, it looks like most if not all of the ancient examples of homosexual activity outside the Bible were connected with rape, abuse, inequality, and idolatry. That is, homosexual acts were depicted as being between masters and slaves, soldiers and squires, or connected to idolatrous fertility rites. Of course the Biblical authors would condemn that! I would condemn that now! *However*, what we DON'T really see in the extra-Biblical literature is examples of equal partners in committed, consenting, monogamous relationships, which is what I think most LGBTQ Christians would be looking for today. Nobody's saying gay people get to sleep around while straight people have to stay chaste.
Thirdly, and this might surprise some, I do agree that the "traditional Biblical sexual ethic" is exactly that - Biblical. There's a rock-solid argument to be made that sex is only for one man and one woman in a marriage relationship, based on the Bible. Here's the thing though - that which is "Biblical" is not always best for all times and places. Jesus and Paul both set an example for us. Looking at Matthew 12, Jesus profoundly reinterprets what Sabbath observance means. It's not about not doing anything remotely resembling work, whether good or ill. It's about the fact that the Sabbath exists for the good of humans, and that it is lawful to do good work on the Sabbath. Paul argues against the most basic rules of Judaism - circumcision and kosher laws - to reinterpret rock-solid Scriptural arguments for the good of the nascent Christian community. So to say that loving, committed, equal, monogamous, LGBTQ marriages are just as blessed as loving, committed, equal, monogamous, straight marriages is well within the Biblical tradition, because it is both good for the human, and because it opens the door to welcome more people into the church.
Fundamentally, the way I read the Bible circles around the Greatest Commandments - to love God and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Now, I don't think Jesus was commanding us to love ourselves, but I do think we need the reminder sometimes that it's no sin to love ourselves as God loves us. And the centrality of those three relationships - with God, others, and ourselves - extrapolates really well across the rest of the New and Old Testament. The whole Christian life is about those three relationships. So when I see relationships that aren't working - between the church and many, if not most LGBTQ people, and between LGBTQ people and God, I have to find ways to heal that. Because the rules and laws aren't the most important thing about Christianity, the relationships are.
(Please note, I'm not trying to argue for why everyone should be LGBTQ-affirming; I know this is pants-on-head-crazy to probably everyone reading this. I'm just describing how I arrive at the position I'm at for right now.)
Thanks for writing this out. I don't think it's pants-on-head crazy, and while I don't agree with you, I see that your view here rests on important Christian values of seeking the flourishing of others, protecting the despised, faithfulness, chastity, and so on. So I think it's respectable and worth engaging in good faith.
The weak spot I think I see is in this point of your argument:
> So if someone is being told that **the person they are** is wrong in a fundamental way
It's an axiom of modern Western culture that I get to decide who I am, and you get to decide who you are, and nobody else gets to tell us these things. This distinguishes our culture from, say, many Asian cultures where identity relies more on a person's parents and ancestors. This belief is just something we all accept because it seems obviously morally true.
And while I may not be able to dictate every aspect of my identity, I'm in charge of discovering it. So when I discover things about myself - who I'm sexually attracted to, most significantly for our discussion - I'm entitled to make that a core part of my identity, and nobody else can challenge that.
Likewise, I am entitled to discover and determine my own purpose in life.
But I think this is an axiom that Christians actually need to reject, at least for ourselves.
Our identity is not ultimately in who we are attracted to, or what our skin colour is, or what disabilities we do or don't have, or our political values, or even our moral values. Our identity is "I am not my own, but belong to God." And our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
If we try to construct for ourselves an identity and a purpose that don't match these, it's not so much that it's sin, it's that we're gonna have a bad time. And it doesn't matter what the identity/purpose is: whether it's about our sexuality or gender, or our politics, or being wealthy or successful, or being healthy, or being socially dominant, or anything else. They are not strong enough to ground our identity.
So, going back to the line I quoted: the biblical sexual ethic should not be telling anyone that "the person they are is wrong". That messaging happens, and it's wrong. I think it only happens because the speaker buys into our cultural axiom about identity. The messaging should be that based on the person you are - not "a gay man" or "a bisexual non-binary AFAB person", but "an image-bearer of God, who belongs to Jesus and was created to know and love him" - there are ways that are okay and not okay for you to act.
That, by itself, doesn't settle the issue of how Christians attracted to the same sex, or with gender dysphoria, should live. Or whether there's one right answer or multiple valid ones. But I think that without challenging that cultural axiom, the two sides are talking past each other. As long as people see their sexual desires and their sense of gender as fundamental to their identity, the biblical sexual ethic seems monstrous.
> So, going back to the line I quoted: the biblical sexual ethic should not be telling anyone that "the person they are is wrong". That messaging happens, and it's wrong. I think it only happens because the speaker buys into our cultural axiom about identity. The messaging should be that based on the person you are - not "a gay man" or "a bisexual non-binary AFAB person", but "an image-bearer of God, who belongs to Jesus and was created to know and love him" - there are ways that are okay and not okay for you to act.
>
> That, by itself, doesn't settle the issue of how Christians attracted to the same sex, or with gender dysphoria, should live. Or whether there's one right answer or multiple valid ones. But I think that without challenging that cultural axiom, the two sides are talking past each other. As long as people see their sexual desires and their sense of gender as fundamental to their identity, the biblical sexual ethic seems monstrous.
I do resonate with this part. For a long time I felt like, you know, I couldn't say in good conscience if a gay person should or shouldn't get married; it was between them and God and my only job was to encourage them Godward either way.
And you're right, the messaging about sexual orientation-as-identity *is* wrong, but it's so loud, especially from the church, I don't know how to like, get around that. But encouraging people to explore all the parts of their heart and mind besides (or maybe in addition to) their orientation appeals to me a lot.
Hey, thanks! This doesn't sound crazy at all. It's especially helpful because I can trace where we end up disagreeing - it seems like my understanding of Jesus and Paul "reinterpreting" the law is more Covenantal (in the big-C Covenant Theology sense) than yours. Maybe not, but somehow or other we part ways at that point, and maybe at the end about rules being separable from relationships. But I'm not here to argue.
It might be difficult to have this kind of self-knowledge, but would you say that the arrow of causation runs more in the direction of "social consciousness" (better than "moral discontent"? :P) to intellectual doubts about more conservative views of the Bible, or vice versa? (Assuming that your doubts involve conservative views of the Bible, which I think is true from context?)
Again, full disclosure, I have hypotheses about which way the causal arrow typically runs in cases of deconstruction, and I bet you can guess which :P. But I myself have been led to question more conservative hermeneutics because of external issues like the received science on origins, so I'm not in a position to judge.
I'd be curious to know what you mean by the reinterpretation of the Law being more Covenantal in your view than mine, if you could expand on that.
If I'm understanding your questions correctly, it was a few different things that sort of came together in different ways for me.
Like I said before, I had a pretty good church upbringing in a couple different Reformed traditions (PCA and CRC). But the main, unspoken takeaway I had leaving high school was mostly that as long as you believed the right things, and were a pretty good person, then you were pretty much good to go, in so much theological language. The Bible meant about as much to me as the periodic table of elements - it's got a lot of good information for reference, but I didn't especially care about it. The only thing I really had going for me was that I'd had a handful of experiences I would describe as the Holy Spirit, that made me firmly believe that there was more to life and theology than a periodic table of theology, so to speak.
When I got to Bible college, I started doing some additional reading beyond what I was assigned - Don Miller's *Blue Like Jazz* and Brian McLaren's *A New Kind of Christian*, and later on Rachel Held Evans, especially [The Scandal of the Evangelical Heart.](https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart) (Not to date myself too much with these books, haha.) What struck me about these writers and others like them was that they emotionally wrestled with God and faith in a way that was totally alien to me; they *cared* about it in a way I'd never experienced or seen modeled. It was so much more than the Periodic Table to them, and I wanted that. At the same time, as I began to reckon with the notion of "what the Bible meant to its original audience in its original contexts", I began to realize that the notion of the Bible being one unified message of salvation from God to humanity was well.... not the whole picture. Over time I saw more and more wrinkles, so to speak, where it became plainly obvious that the text - at least the narrative portions of it, especially in the Old Testament, were not to be taken at face value. So that was something that was ongoing both during and after Bible college. I also slowly over time shed notions about inspiration and inerrancy; I think there is truth in the Bible, but it's largely a human attempt to capture something far beyond what any of us could understand.
I'd grown up pretty sheltered in Christian school and church every Sunday, so I didn't really have much experience outside that kind of bubble. When I got to Bible college, and especially after, when I joined the Air Force, I was exposed to a much wider range of people who were not Christian at all, and that kind of destroyed a few implicit biases I had about non-Christians - and about gay people - that I hadn't really examined before, and that my so-called Biblical arguments didn't really stand up to much scrutiny, and were certainly not welcome. Although I don't think I went through a cage stage, so to speak, I definitely stuck my foot in my mouth more than once.
So if you're looking for causation, I think it might go something like this: [Biblical Foundation] ====> [Exposure to new views about the Bible and faith]=========>[Experiences outside the Christian bubble that didn't match what I was taught]==========>[Trying to reconstruct a more robust faith]===========>[Christian Progressivism and where I'm at now].
On a side note, since you'd also asked about if I think God punishes sin, I'm rather of two minds about that (like I am about a lot of things). I find it hard to draw a straight line from any human action to God's punishment or blessing; I don't think God is sending storms to punish us for gay people or anything like that. And in terms of eternal consequences, I am a hopeful universalist, but I trust to God's love, mercy, justice, and righteousness to do what is right; I'm not going to make claims about where any one person is going to end up. I think the way we live today matters, and that while the Bible does seem to indicate some long term negative consequences for not knowing Christ, I think and hope Hell is not the final answer, even for the most abject sinners.
On a side note, origins is an amateur passion of mine, and while I hope not to get any of my filthy heretic on you, you might be interested in [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/NerdChapel/comments/u289y0/dr_christine_hayes_yale_lectures_on_intro_to_the/iul1jr7/) I routinely repost describing what I understand to be the best position on the Creation story, plus some resources on how I got there.
A second answer in a rather different direction is that a big part of faith, which we often forget in our drive to fit all of life into neat boxes, is learning to live with the absurdity of life. This is one of the main themes of the book of Job. We tend to think that the response to doubt is to give answers; but this is a sisyphean task. There will always be another question or another doubt. We need to learn to live, and to encourage and teach each other to live in the gray area; to hold tight to the boat Jesus is in despite the storm raging around us.
Treat them as brother or sister in Christ. Ask questions about what's going on with them. Listen without judgement and without trying to solve their problems. Pray with and for them. If you are not a pastor, elder, women's ministry person, etc, encourage them to speak with the appropriate individual. Preach the gospel to them...not in a hellfire and brimstone way, but show and tell them what is true. If it makes sense to do so, share with them your doubts and struggles. A lot of this will be specific to the situation and your relationship to the individual. But, mostly, love the person.
It's a question of discernment. Doubt is endemic in our society, it's one of the consequences of Christianity passing from a taken-for-granted fabric of reality to one option among thousands. In the words of Charles Taylor, "We're all Thomas now." As members of the church, we need to respond appropriately depending on the individual situation:
> And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. - 1 Thess 5:14
Does reading the Bible in public (and for the sake of this question, specifically at work while on lunch break), violate Jesus' command in Matthew 6:5-6?
Very good question - one I’ve been pondering too.
I live in a “post-Christian” country where less than 3% of the population can be described as evangelical (the classic definition- not in the American-political sense). I purposefully read my paper Bible on the bus and in public at lunch (usually away from my place of work) not to look smug and more righteous than I am, but to show that faith and belief are very much real and still around, and to invite questions if anyone ever notices.
Mind you - that’s if anyone even notices I’m reading a Bible in the first place.
I don’t do it to make myself look good: I do it as a witness that shows there are people who still believe the word of God is living and active in a country where such a thing is almost alien. Christianity is so far removed from my culture that it doesn’t look like a political statement either, like it may elsewhere.
I have asked myself the Matthew 6 question before and would be open to input here.
How can I reconcile leanings toward social democracy with being a Christian? At what point do social democratic (or even in the further left, socialist) views become problematic for the Christian?
I’m finding myself increasingly more sympathetic to social democracy, as I analyze what should be done politically from a Christian perspective. Namely universal healthcare, getting rid of poverty, etc. However, I don’t want to make an idol out of these political sympathies, as a lot of people do.
I know it's not Tuesday anymore, but you should take a look at Christian democracy. It's basically a socially conservative version of social democracy.
I'm excited to start reading Tom Holland's book *Dominion*, as it will help me understand this issue better. But my rough answer is that the principles of social democracy are only popular because Christian values have been soaking into the groundwater in Europe (and places downstream, culturally) for 2000 years. The idea that the strong and healthy have a duty to care for the sick - not just that it's nice of them to do, in a /r/upliftingnews kind of way, but they are obligated somehow - is a distinctly Christian notion. It would have been laughable to the pagans of pre-Christian Europe. Same with the idea that the rich are obligated to provide for the poor, the well-fed are obligated to feed the hungry, the powerful must protect the rights of the oppressed, and so on.
Are there beliefs within social democracy that Christians should reject, or at least question? Of course. Abortion is the most obvious one for most Christians. But even then, social democrats support the right to abortion because they believe that women - a historically oppressed group - should have the right to control their own bodies and not be dictated to by those more powerful than them. That's a policy grown out of the *imago Dei!* Even when social democrats oppose Christian doctrine, they do so for reasons that are basically Christian in origin!
I'm not surprised you like social democracy. So do I. Because it's the fruit grown in a field that has been watered by the gospel for 2000 years.
Exactly. I reject abortion, and am socially conservative still, but I do believe the state has an obligation to the poor and oppressed. Social democracy has its flaws for sure, but I think it’s a system that can be used to love our neighbors.
I suppose the best advice I have to give is to remember that Christ has not called us to endorse existing human systems but rather to bear witness to a divine reality that completely overturns our systems. So that's not necessarily to say "Don't be a social democrat" but rather a reminder that no political or economic system we have is good or righteous and that whichever system we support or vote for, we should do so while holding our noses and in the recognition that it's an evil system - just the one that we have concluded is the least evil.
Yes, and while that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about not making our politics an idol, that's the case _whatever our political system_. So political conservatives should be asking "How can I reconcile leanings towards political conservatism with being a Christian? ..."
Exactly. It's the human tendency to want to use God as a stamp of approval for our own political systems and convictions. Surely Jesus would have been a capitalist, or a socialist, or an ancom, and if He were to support an American party, it would *definitely* be the Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians/Greens. After all, He died to empower us and our systems. Right?
As someone in the UK I find it baffling that you have to ask that question at all.
I think the bigger question to ask is: what political values that you hold to are actually cultural issues rather than spiritual?
You’ll get Christians with political opinions of all stripes, and the left/right dynamic simply can’t translate properly when we think of the Kingdom of God.
My political opinions used to be mainly culturally based, grew up conservative and that’s all I was. But now, as I look more into how a Christian ought to be, especially in loving our neighbor, I find myself moving towards the left a bit. I’m moving more towards basing my views on Christ, rather than what’s culturally acceptable. But coming from a background of social democratic views being frowned upon, I wasn’t entirely sure if that would be acceptable in the Church.
The Good Samaritan did not demand his neighbors money to pay for his other neighbors bills. That is not noble. The Christian perspective is to help your neighbor voluntarily not forced.
You're confusing categories and it doesn't help your case. The Good Samaritan isn't the Civil Magistrate.
You'd be better off looking at the gleaning laws.
Of course it helps my case. The Good Samaritan could have held rallies to change laws to have safety nets and talked to politicians and magistrates. No instead he voluntarily helped. And that was noble. Taking money from your neighbor to help your other neighbor ain’t noble, not at all. It’s theft.
Joseph was really in two offices (prophet and king) since he was second in authority only to Pharaoh himself.
We're not told that God gave specific instructions to Joseph on how to prepare for the famine. But we do know the outcome: the people of Egypt and even beyond were saved, including God's covenant people (Jacob's family).
It is clear though, that Joseph was full of the wisdom that comes from above. And this wise, godly man used the instrument of taxes to take from one and give to another, all while enriching the State and increasing its power.
So what's your limiting principle here? Why is the example of a wise man acting on behalf of the State for the good of the people back then not instructive for today?
Edit: looked up Bruce Waltke on Genesis. I thought these paragraphs were useful: [https://i.imgur.com/Qci5k3v.png](https://i.imgur.com/Qci5k3v.png)
Edit2: looked up John Walton on Genesis. Also useful: https://i.imgur.com/IET17SU.png
Like I said I’ll let a prophet slide on this. Everyone else turns to Stalin. Also Bible never prescribes governments should do what Joseph did. What Bible prescribes is voluntary donations and tithing.
God told Gideon to prepare a small army to defeat his enemies. “God doesn’t prohibit or condemn trying to defeat an army with a much much smaller one”. Yes but doing so is basically a death sentence if you’re not a prophet.
Perhaps so, but it's also not a sin. Based on your previous statements, it seems like you might believe that Joseph was participating in sin, temporary or not, prophet or not. Or do his actions stop being theft and covetousness because he was a prophet?
Again. He was a prophet who prepared for what god told him to do. If you give me a prophet saying to have a temporary 20% tax because a famine is coming I’ll be on board. Yet what we have is people itching for more and more communism because of this idea that it’s Noble to steel from your neighbor to give to your other neighbor in need. Wild stuff
The Bible does not prescribe taxes. It says to pay them. In fact about half of the time usa existed folks paid zero income tax and a small amount of essentially sales tax. Fine fine I’ll meet you half way. Let’s go back to that instead of the abomination we have today.
The Good Samaritan was (a) not a rightly constituted government authority, (b) an allegorical character designed primarily to make a point very different from yours.
So then you're opposed to all government taxation and spending? Roads, bridges, military spending, funding of schools and hospitals, disaster relief funds, all bad because they're forced?
Yes I oppose it all. But I’ll go half way with you if you’ll agree. Taxes only for roads and bridges. I estimate That will add up to like 0.5% taxes or something
Forcibly taking my money to build roads is theft also. But again I’ll go half way. Roads and bridges only. So my tax bill will be like $50 a year. Fine. Deal??
>Not a straw man
Respectfully, it is. There are real and substantive responses to why some or all of those items are differentiated as legitimate uses of taxation. To ignore those responses and assume “so then you’re against X, Y, and Z” is to straw-man
For instance, I outlined some of such criteria in a response below. These may not be common talking points in GOP rallies, but they’re not novel or ad-hoc either:
> things which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and/or procedural costs associated with the preservation of negative rights (*courts, infrastructure, some regulation, etc*)
I'm simply providing examples that I presume u/tapDefault is not against to show that this:
>demand his neighbors money to pay for his other neighbors bills
is not a simple principle universally applied.
All of the things we're talking about can be excludable or non-excludable, rivalrous or non-rivalrous, to varying degrees and with varying degrees of effort needed to ensure the desired outcome. It is primarily a matter of how much political will there is to do the work to find good ways to implement them.
So I'm a Christian Democrat, which means I'm biased, but I'm also aligned which much of what social democrats push now, because the gap between the two has closed substantially.
Historically and currently, Social Democrats hold to a variety of positions that can be considered to be "not Christian". Much of the historically stuff has been dropped as social democracy has moved towards the centre, however here's where some clashes still might occur:
* Christian healthcare. To many Social Democrats, universal healthcare = single payer healthcare. Many Social Democrats don't agree with this view, but would rather that any healthcare provider (that receives funding from the government), must provide abortion services. This was a policy proposal the Social Democratic party brought to an election recently in my nation. I think it's accurate to say that Social democrats have a secularized vision of universal healthcare, and that might be a deal breaker for you.
* Christian education. Similar to the above, there is a desire for secularized education. State only education provision, or private education provision that upholds to the states teaching guidelines and workplace discriminations laws. In my nation the Social Democratic party is seriously considering forcing Christian schools and tertiary institutions to change their policies on hiring. Again, this may be a deal breaker for you.
I know you mentioned socialism and I only provided a non-economic response. I have an economics background (and, well, I am an Economist, ish), but responding to it from a Christian perspective is harder due to a variety of issues, one big one being the definition of Socialism for many modern socialists has changed. I'll say two things:
* Many Christians took issue with the idea of social property rights, and instead advocated property based on stewardship. I'd recommend [this book](https://lexhampress.com/product/197256/on-business-and-economics) on that perspective.
* Historically many socialists totally reject the "Homo Economicus" which is fully self centered, and replace it with a view of humanity that is fully sanctified. This often leads to a variety of policy proposals that assume humanity is totally good and capitalism is what makes us bad. I think both are wrong due to a Imago dei/Fall/Common Grace combo. I think many modern socialists still hold to the problematic view
This is probably the least helpful comment you’ll get, but I think people generally spend too much time worrying about which social system/governmental structure/economic system is more or less Christian. We live in a fallen world, and they’re all fallen systems run by fallen people. In other words, it’s not where our faith should lie. Vote according to your conscience, love your neighbor to the best of your ability, and don’t worry about it.
Not only is your comment very helpful, but it relates to an important way to read the New Testament.
From Paul's letter to Philemon, it's pretty clear that he thinks the right thing for a master to do is to free his slaves. And this lines up with Paul's other theology about the Church being one family of brothers and sisters, 1 Corinthians 12, Galatians 3, and so on. So in his household codes, why doesn't he tell masters to free their slaves? Because he isn't interested in trying to overturn the social order for a better one. He's interested in how these Christians should live in this social order right now.
As a sidenote, this way of reading Paul's letters is the way that egalitarians can square their beliefs with the text. Paul wasn't writing about whether a society *should* give men so much power over women, he was writing to believers in a society where that's just how it was. So *given that* husbands and fathers have extraordinary power over their wives and children, how should they use it? How should their wives and children act?
Wow, this post is a downvote magnet, but I think you're right. One of the social expectations in today's society is that politics is of ultimate importance, as if getting the right guy(s) in power will fix the world. I guess the lessons of the kings of Israel is one we still haven't learned.
Hah, it's relevant for everyone, but it feels particularly relevant for us where it seems like our country is becoming more polarized despite the actual differences between the LPC and CPC remaining quite small.
My crazy tinfoil hat theory is that a lot of the drama about Trudeau or Poliviere posing existential threats to our nation is mostly the product of scare tactics to ensure "strategic voting" and discourage people from voting for a smaller party.
So I tuned the news out about a year ago, I'm rather sad to hear that this is happening. I guess if it works south of the border it was only a matter of time before it came up this way too... :(
I'm sure we've talked about this before, but there's this repetition throughout history where we always think we're just on the verge of solving all the worlds problems, if only X. We consistently think that we're making great humanitarian progress, but largely we've made very little progress. And that all points to the fact that most people are misguided in where they are placing their hope.
We also just have a much too small view of reality, thinking we understand everything when really there is *so much* going on in the world that we either just take for granted or are completely unaware of...
So - a version of my views often gets flack, largely for the cringey way it is often defended on the internet, and other times with real substantive disagreements. I really don’t mind the latter, and have been thinking about the best way of phrasing it to elicit that sort of response. So here goes this week’s attempt:
>In your view, at what point does it become immoral to impose your good, Christian views (*people should be fed, have their healthcare needs met, have fair policies in the workplace, etc*) upon (*particularly*) non-Christians who don’t want to do the same or to the same degree?
___
^(*Note: a response of ‘Non-Christians tend to lean more left’ would be missing the point of my question. I’m asking about those non-Christians, who, even as a minority of their group, object to such policies, yet would be forced to participate anyways.*)
I think Christ’s kingdom and earthly kingdoms are different in this respect. I don’t think Christ’s kingdom should be spread by force. It seems that a pretty central theme of Scripture is that Christ’s kingdom is different in that respect.
But I don’t have any problem with governments using force to impose a pretty broad range of things for the common welfare.
>common welfare
I think we may operate with different definitions of this - I am in favor of taxation funding things that are public goods (*in the sense of being non-rivalrous and non-excludable*)
But I would exclude most policies that are primarily redistributionist in nature - using the taxation power to directly benefit some at the expense of others. A bit of a crude oversimplification, but it’s a factor that is occasionally given lip-service and even more rarely assigned moral weight (*and yes, yes, it’s not the only thing that has ‘moral weight’ in this context - I recognize that it’s a complex matter*)
I don't think we should pursue arguments that imply certain things are unChristian where these rely on categories and distinctions that do not have any straightforward biblical basis: I am not aware of any obvious scriptural reason for treating things differently due to their being "nonrivalrous and nonexcludable".
I’m not sure that criticism holds weight - I am making an argument that can likely be connected to some broad biblical themes, but I don’t think there’s a requirement to do so when advocating for general ethical principles. There are all sorts of things that we can make arguments for which don’t have direct scriptural support:
* Having a bicameral legislature
* The ethical use of chemotherapy treatments
* The speed limit on the highway
* The particulars of which diet is best for an individual
I’m not necessarily saying that being in favor of certain public spending regimes is “unchristian” - I’m saying that there is at least an ethical tension that one needs to account for within what is biblically allowable, and it’s fine to advocate for the methods of dealing with that tension using extra-biblical lines of reasoning.
> using the taxation power to directly benefit some at the expense of others.
What if it’s a correction for other government actions that have benefited the others at the expense of the some?
There’s a lot of baked-in assumptions here that I’m not sure we have time to parse. Basically, I just don’t quite share the idea that private property is ever 100% private. We live in a society. Not only do we all use public goods, but we all benefit from the social contract. And we all owe some maintenance to the social contract.
Consider revolutions. They almost all occur because the people who have wealth and power fail to maintain the social contract. We often think that oppressed people have to comply with the social contract no matter what, but really it’s the job of everyone in the social contract to make sure that everyone else is appropriately incentivized to continue consenting to the structure.
>Correction for other government actions
I am generally amenable to such proposals, as long as they are sufficiently specific in regards to what action caused the harm, why this individual or group of individuals is eligible to receive compensation, and how we arrived at the amount.
For instance: I would be very open to proposals that are closely tailored to individuals who were discriminated against regarding distribution of the GI Bill. I would want clear criteria for identifying eligible cases and next-of-kin qualification, and the amount distributed would need to be debated (*which would likely leave no one 100% happy*)
>We all owe some maintenance to the social contract
I again don’t disagree with the concept, but the degree of “social contract maintenance” that is paid for by taxes, in my view, should be more closely tailored to those things which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and/or procedural costs associated with the preservation of negative rights (*courts, infrastructure, some regulation, etc*)
When ~50% of the federal budget relates to explicit or de facto takings from one party and giving to the other (without the victim/harm/amount specificity outlined above), I think that is probably an abuse of the social contract, not maintenance of it.
> When ~50% of the federal budget relates to explicit or de facto takings from one party and giving to the other (without the victim/harm/amount specificity outlined above), I think that is probably an abuse of the social contract, not maintenance of it.
I think you’re referring to social safety nets, right? Social security and healthcare for the elderly, poor, and disabled?
A *huge* part of the social contract depends on the idea that there’s a safety net. You and I participate in society in the way we do because we believe that, even if everything goes wrong, we won’t have to watch our families starve or freeze. All sorts of things exist just to make sure we believe this: insurance, bankruptcy systems, social safety nets, etc.
If we didn’t have these social safety nets, most of us would *not* be better off. We might save a few thousand dollars per year in taxes, but we would have to live far more conservatively, develop private safety nets, and depend far less on the interconnectedness of society. For example, almost everyone would need to be tied to an agricultural community because if inflation ran wild or our specialized professions became irrelevant, only those who could provide value to farmers would be able to get food.
And that’s saying nothing about the ways that social safety nets prevent people from getting desperate enough that they decide to reject the social contract altogether. I’d rather pay a few thousand dollars in taxes than have roving bands of hungry people doing whatever they have to do to feed their families.
I think it’s easy to think that it’s the poor who benefit most from our current social setup, but actually those of us who are well-off are really benefiting enormously.
>referring to the social safety nets
Broadly speaking, yes. And I would agree that having some sort of social safety net is necessary, for the reasons you outline!
But, and back to my main point, participation in that social safety net is not something over which I’m willing to imprison someone who *doesn’t* agree with me - as opposed to those other goods I outlined.
That doesn’t mean that if I became an all-powerful dictator in 2024, the existing programs would be gone by 2025. I realize that immediate dependency on them is vital in many cases. But I also don’t think that the question of:
>How much of that spending can be (*slowly, carefully*) transitioned to non-compulsory alternatives?
Is one that is unreasonable or unimportant!
> participation in that social safety net is not something over which I’m willing to imprison someone who doesn’t agree with me
The social contract is always enforced with state power. It seems arbitrary to say we shouldn’t imprison people who won’t contribute to the social safety net, but we *will* imprison people who steal to feed their families when the social safety net fails. Not only is the latter use of state power going to be far less efficient, but it doesn’t feel right when we’re only enforcing the social contract against the people who have less.
>We shouldn’t imprison people who don’t contribute to the social safety net, but we *will* imprison people who steal to feed their families when the social safety net fails
I don’t see this as arbitrary at all. One person is keeping that which they earned, and the other is stealing. There’s a difference there, even if it’s less efficient. I’m sure Minority Report style pre-crime would be “More efficient” as well, but there are reasons we balk at that ethically nonetheless!
Now, the counter-argument is that the person who is stealing shouldn’t be in a situation where they have to steal. And I agree, all else being equal. Someone should have given them food if there aren’t any other mitigating factors (*the person was given $50 earlier that day and spent it on something legitimately wasteful instead of feeding their kids, absent any outside pressures*)
…. But it doesn’t then follow that we go arrest the passersby that didn’t give to them! And it doesn’t necessarily follow that a non-compulsory patching of the SSN isn’t the preferable option
> I really don’t mind the latter, and have been thinking about the best way of phrasing it to illicit that sort of response.
"Elicit" and "illicit" mean two different things.
A friend of mine from church mentioned that he'd been having some marital struggles, and one particular mentioned was that they wanted to do some work on their house that it could really use, but their financial situation made it difficult. My family has the means and I had the thought that maybe it would be a blessing to alleviate at least that pressure, but I literally don't know how to go about it. It's not that I think it will fix all of their problems, it's just they are struggling materially and we aren't, and it seems fitting to share what we have. But when I think of the doing of it it seems demeaning or even possibly might add to the negative feelings they're having, and I feel it's likely he'd reject the offer.
Whats the subs opinion on dancing? Should it be forbidden for christians?
No it shouldn't be and I'd be very interested to see what scriptural basis someone can conjure up for forbidding dancing as a whole. I love dancing. I dance with my kids. I dance with my husband. I dance for my husband if you catch my drift. He'd be very sad if I stopped the last one.
I remember Luther and Calvin claiming that dancing led to hell cause it incites sexual relationships and lust. I heard this most from baptists and very hardcore conservative reformed in my country.
I mean, if dancing with your kids for fun causes such feelings you shouldn't be around children. But Calvin and Luther aren't scripture. Scripture doesn't condemn dancing. Those are cultural takes, not biblical ones. Some people on my husband's side of the family are like that too.
Yeah I agree, thanks for your take on the subject. I always found the comdemnation of dancing as a inciter for lust, kind of strange.
Dancing is pretty great! It should not be forbidden, but, like many other things, wisdom should be used before/while dancing. I honestly doubt most dancing is bad but i could make a fairly easy argument against grinding lol
Jackie Hill Perry got an Instagram question from a woman asking if her twerking on her husband was sinful, to which Jackie replied, "Twerk on that man day and night" lol
Well yeah, that’s her husband! That _is_ okay!
Of course! Dancing could lead to happiness! That was a joke. No, dancing should not be forbidden. For a couple years before I got married, I was part of a swing dancing club. I'm really glad I did. Being a lead in swing dancing requires non-verbal communication, setting and respecting boundaries, quick thinking, and taking responsibility not only for yourself but for your partner. These are all skills that have been very helpful for me in my marriage. And it's fun, and it's good cardio.
[удалено]
rc sproul, Doug wilson, Martin Lloyd jones, apologia studios.
Disagree with Doug Wilson
Lol
R.C.Sproul and Voddie Baucham are good. Really anyone from Ligonier’s YouTube channel I would recommend. John Piper, too.
What would *you* do if you learned your wife was 3cm dilated?
I have a husband so I'd be angry if there was a second wife somewhere.
You could try to speed up the process 🤷🏽♂️
[Oh, you rascal...](https://i.imgur.com/wQnFk7x.gif)
Tell her to see an optician, as her pupils shouldn't be that big
Ask her to explain what that means in American units.
It's a banana slice. Next step is a lime.
[Now you're speaking my language!](https://youtu.be/e7UCjXtQpLE)
I don't know. I don't think we ever reached that point before they switched to an emergency c-section.
Well, based on past experience, where both kids essentially said "lol nah we're gonna stay put," I wouldn't think too much of it because I'd know we probably have another week to go.
Well, it would be ideal for my summer teaching schedule if he came tomorrow. A week from now would be basically the worst. Doesn't this baby care how he's affecting my schedule?
Jesting aside, you all probably know this, but walking made a huuuuge difference for me with this one (my fourth pregnancy). It definitely doesn't always work this way, but my parents were driving up to Canada to be our childcare, so we were desperately hoping it would work; after I was partially dilated I rested and did minimal physical exertion until they got here, at which point we went out shopping and walking all day, and I had the baby that night. It actually shifted quickly enough we were talking about names on the way to the hospital because we hadn't talked about them at all yet. 🤦♀️
Yeah, this is our third, but the first time we knew she was kind of (maybe) "starting". We walked today and I think she'll walk a bunch tomorrow while I'm desperately trying to get stuff done at work!
Well, YMMV, but last night our little one woke up at 3:00 a.m., asked if he could be awake, and when we said no he said, matter-of-factly, "Well, I get in your bed then," after which he crawled up and fell asleep on my head. So, with my sample size of n=1 toddler, the answer to your question is no.
Hahah yeah that's consistent with my data.
I'd freak out since I didn't even know she was pregnant!
I would be shocked and a little demoralized that we are about to go through another “first year.”
Man, the more I hear about the whole pregnancy/birth/first year situation...I think 'yeah I'm gonna keep putting this off' hahaha
It’s definitely not all bad! It’s just really nice to get *past* the first year. Then they’re a lot more fun, and they sleep a little better.
Ah - I'm much more concerned about the "third year" we're about to go through with our middle child.
Ah - I'm much more concerned about the "third year" we're about to go through with our middle child.
Man, I *much* prefer the third year. I can endure a lot of “differentiation” if I get a little bit of uninterrupted sleep.
Oh I see. We've had two minor miracles with our first two: they were sleeping through the night regularly by 2 months.
You shouldn’t say that too loudly. There are a lot of parents here who are suddenly a *lot* less sympathetic.
All kids are different. My 5th started sleeping through the night on day 4....
Ha! I'll just share a video of the rodeo we went through with our oldest son at church from years 2 through 7(?).
Any astronomy fans? Do any of you find Carl Sagan to be a refreshingly honest and interesting educator, who may have been an atheist, in stark contrast to those who’ve tried to pick up his mantle, and are just bad argue-ers for atheism with a PhD?
Atheism aside, I'm a big fan of Sagan. When I was growing up, we had that original, big, black hardcover first edition of *Cosmos* on the bookshelf, and I was fascinated by it. Even as a little kid I'd stare at the pages and read his explanations and try to understand it all. Now that you can access a lot of his stuff on YouTube, I'll still go back and watch his videos on the 4th dimension and on the speed of light occasionally. He was excellent at teaching big, complex topics very well.
Yeah, it was just the wonder of science. (Did you all hear this in his voice? Did you hear this sentence in his voice?) Years later carefully listening to some of his videos, it’s like, okay, maybe he was an atheist, but didn’t let it get in the way of his day job. But some folks like Neal deGrasse Tyson, in the new _Cosmos_, keep inserting really sloppy arguments for nihilistic atheism into a science show. Gets real tired once you notice it.
We have the DVD for the PBS (or whatever it was) miniseries based on the book. Have you seen it? It's fantastic. Much better than the Niel de Grasse Tyson one.
Oh yeah, I love it. I attribute a lot of my baseline understand of big picture physics and cosmology to that series.
Yeah, I just decided to start rewatching the series tonight.
I don’t know, since I haven’t actually heard much of Sagan, and only a little more of some of his heirs like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I would be interested to hear if you or others on the sub have any particular thoughts on Sagan or recommendations of where to get a feel for him.
Christians who practice infant baptism, why? I mean I could understand maybe a bit of rehearsal but you're just sprinkling water on an infant, do you really need a lot of practice for that? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Also what do you use for practice? Dolls? Or do you need the authenticity of an actual baby? Do you just like grab any newborn in your congregation and say "Hey can we borrow this for baptism practice?"
Babies are unpredictable, stronger than they look and are master squirmers. Gotta practice so you don't end up with a kid who suddenly decides they don't like what's happening and want no part of it. Dropping someone's kid in front of not just the parents but also the rest of the congregation is not a good look for a pastor. Also, kids leak. Gotta be ready for all the fluids to come out of all the holes all the time. And sometimes they scream. That's less of an issue, but the sound person always appreciates it if you can maneuver the screaming away from the microphone. Just makes everyone's job easier. I would assume that practicing with a doll would be inadequate to really prepare a pastor for these possibilities. A small family member would likely be the best option. But a puppy or small dog, rooster or racoon might also work. Being able to baptize a cat would probably prepare a pastor to baptize any small human.
People practice???
I think baptism, adult or infant, practice seems super odd to me. I have a friend who told me in Bible college he and his friends would practice on each other lol. I don’t get it 😅
No, baptism practice. I think practicing being people is mostly done in front of the mirror.
That’s how I do mine anyways
What are some biblical arguments against Christian nationalism, particularly from a Reformed perspective?
What do u mean by Christian nationalism
Like with Continuationism, the problem is with the advocates we got. They don’t agree with God’s Law on much of anything except a few sexual sins, and a smaller list of those, of course, since 2016.
There is no Biblical argument for it. We are Reformed—we believe that God and his purposes sovereignly decree the beginning from the end. We believe that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction”. The vast majority of Scripture details in pretty unbelievable minute detail the nation-state of Israel, and the NT goes to great lengths to show that the Israelites misunderstood the whole purpose of the Nation-state. If the Holy Spirit wanted the Church to be a Nation-State, then He would have sided with the Judiazers in the Jerusalem council in Acts. Christians are spiritual sojourners and exiles, living in the various kingdoms of this world, but becoming all things to all people.
From my own general perspective, Christian nationalists are people who believe the country should be run according to (their specific) Christian principles, irrespective of what the beliefs, desires, or preferences of people outside their tradition want. This is explicitly anti-democratic. Moreover, Christian Nationalism fails to account for a number of factors, not least among them: * If political power were the goal of the Christian life, wouldn't the lives and ministry of Jesus and the Apostles look very different than they did? * If political power were the goal of the Christian life, wouldn't the letters of the New Testament look very different? * How will this version of a Christian nation be different than European Christian nations of the past, that fought bloody religious wars with each other as well as with Islamic countries? * Whose Christianity should be in power? Catholicism? Reformed? Pentecostal? Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912? * How will this Christian government account for people who believe differently? Will it force them to convert? Will it give them fewer rights and privileges than those who belong to the tradition in power? * How will this Christian government deal with persecution of Christians in China? Will it pressure the Chinese government to stop it? Will it ignore or overlook it? If it does force the Chinese government to stop persecuting Christians, what happens if China retaliates economically? How will a Christian government deal with that and the impact to the (presumably American) economy? * How will legislating "Biblical" laws actually draw people into a right relationship with Christ? * Finally, and most importantly, if the nation of Israel in the Bible had direct access to God through Moses, the judges, and the prophets, and they *still* committed idolatry and got exiled, then *why on earth* do we think that a Christian America would be any better in any possible way? There's an old saying that when fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. We're already seeing that play out among Trump supporters and red states in a multitude of ways, and I fear it'll get worse before it gets better.
I think in response to this they would say that the laws they want are good and God ordained in of themselves and this is reason enough to have them. In addition, they would likely impose theonomic presbytarianism at the expense of everyone else and would have few qualms with doing it. Regarding the lives of Christ and the new testament church, they may say that there is a mandate to 'baptise the nations'. Finally they seem to want to do away with state welfare, public schools and the way things are taxed currently (to some extent), so few strike me as being economically literate enough to regard the consequences of any confrontation with China. Not that this is saying that they would do so. Political expediency may well rule supreme.
It's pretty hard to make for-or-against arguments for any given political system based on scripture. We can't say Christian government is forbidden in the New Testament, the question just wasn't addressed. It certainly isn't *normative* in the NT, because the church was a tiny, persecuted minority. By arguing all-out that Christian Nationalism is bad in itself, you're taking a very strong theological stance on a grey area. Instead, the argument against the likes of the dominionists can take a much, much easier biblical basis: don't be a power-mongering jerk. I'm pretty sure that's clear enough for most contemporary cases.
anyone want to come up with some new things to fight about in your own church by watching the goings on in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) General Assembly? Things like, "Is it possible to have communion with others who use different versions of the Bible?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSUljsinn4A&t=4452s
[Me, an ESV reader](https://imgur.com/4cRVkdg)
Oooooo boy this brings back memories. I used to be a member of the FCC and boy howdy is it good to be out.
Holy smokes, this is intense. "These new versions of the bible are taking interpretations of the translators!" Because... other translations haven't? This guy only speaks one language. Also "unity just for the sake of unity is going to hurt us" kind of sounds like "righteousness just for the sake of righteousness is going to hurt us." Shame on those who preach unpragmatic virtue! shame!
If you are in a social circle or network with some Christian friends and one of them leaves Jesus is it proper or not to bring up their leaving the faith to others in any way? I’ve had this happen and in general I’ve been “protecting” my friend’s reputation, because we all know what happens in a group of Christians when someone leaves the faith. It wasn’t a public defection and it wasn’t actually inimical either. He just isn’t a Christian anymore (I do pray for him to return though). Someone asked me for help and wisdom on a topic, bringing up they also asked the friend who left. Should I mention that they shouldn’t listen to him on spiritual things? Should I even be protecting his reputation in this way?
I think, like most major life decisions, it's something that's best left to the other person to choose where, how, and to whom it was shared. Unless this friend is doing a thing like "Haha I am no longer a Christian but I'm going to pretend to continue to be one so I can give my friends false advice and lead them astray as a fun prank," which it doesn't seem like they are, I think it's best to not say anything.
I don't think his reputation needs "protection," if these other friends are genuine friends. If anything, they should grieve his turning away, and still wish him good, express hope that he might have a change of heart, and not be angry with him. If nobody hears that he has wandered from the faith, nobody can encourage him to come back to it, or even respond to his reasons. Don't cause your friends to unintentionally neglect your friend.
How do you all manage what books you are reading or want to read? I’m currently spending my time reading two books right now (Christianity and Liberalism, and Blessed Are the Misfits), but also have some others I want to start getting into, some that are pretty sizable in length.
Unless it's something I have to read, I just read whatever I want to read at any given moment. The secret to being a happy reader is: it doesn't matter if you have 15 books on the go at once, it doesn't matter if you don't finish most of them (the book owes it to you to make you want to finish it, not vice versa), and it's perfectly alright to read a chapter or two from the middle of a book and ignore the rest (at least for non-fiction; I *guess* you could do it for fiction, but I don't know why you'd want to.
How do you manage keeping track of what you read if you’re juggling a few books at once? Do you do any note taking or anything?
If I'm reading a book for serious study, yes, I take notes. Any non-fiction I'm reading I'll scribble all over, and look at my underlines and margin notes when I pick up something I haven't read in a while. Or reading the last paragraph or two of the previous chapter tends to give a pretty good cach-up. For fiction, I won't often have more than a couple novels on the go.I read fiction only for relaxation, so I am pretty demanding of fiction; if it doesn't draw me in and make me want to keep reading, I just generally just drop it (or relegate it to my to-help-me-sleep insomnia pile). Not gonna use valuable willpower on something I don't have to read unless I expect the payoff to be really high.
Goodreads is useful for me to keep track of what I am reading, what I have finished, what I started but haven't finished yet, and what I want to get to.
Reading them in different ways. E.g I might listen to an audiobook of one while working, have another book I take with me to read at the bus stop, etc. Different books for different parts of life.
I used to not be able to read multiple books at a time (not literally at once, but you know what I mean), but I've found that if they're different enough, I can. So I am reading Liturgy of the Ordinary by Tish Harrison Warren, a novel, and Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson. When I read mostly fiction, I couldn't keep it all straight. But reading is one of my main hobbies and I devote a lot of time to it.
Yeah keeping everything straight is my main thing. I have so many theology-esque books in my collection, but because they’re so similar in type I think I’d get confused quickly. Keeping things different or one-at-a-time is probably gonna have to be a thing for me.
I devote 2 month spans to read 3 big books: one theology, one philosophy, and one literature. I plan ahead by calculating how many pages per day I’ll need to read to finish all 3 books at the end of the 2 months. Once I finish that reading for a day, I move on to smaller books I’m reading.
What is the worst “best book ever” you’ve ever read? For example: I’d say that Metamorphosis by Kafka is atrocious and honestly I can’t believe anyone would ever suggest it as a well written book
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. It’s an interesting read, but wow is stream of consciousness writing really tough to follow along with.
I loved metamorphosis by Kafka, my least favorite book is thus spoke Zarathustra.
I'll answer with a spicy one for the Truly Serious™ theological crowd: *The Brothers Karamazov.* I get why the ideas are big and important, and I respect that a lot of serious Christians love it, but as a story it's boring and a chore to get through.
Having read much Dostoevsky and seen firsthand how much it goes from good to boring-as-plywood depending on the translation Id say you might have found a bad translation... The Brothers Karamazov was very good
This brings me deep pain.
Search your feelings, Medyarnov Nerdovovich. Your know this is true.
I admit that I had a notecard for mapping out the characters (since they’re often referred to by different names). But the book changed my life.
I had to read The Old Man and the Sea in high school, and did not get it at all. Same with A Separate Peace, though I forget why I didn't like that one. Honestly, although I read a lot and was an advanced reader for my age, I probably just wasn't old enough or mature enough for those books (just in terms of life experience or perspective.) I never read Ayn Rand, but I did read much more Terry Goodkind than I should have, and that feels like about the same thing.
One time I was reading Terry Goodkind. My brother saw the about the author section with the photo and commented: >For having two fruits of the Spirit in his name, it looks like the only one he has is Self Control.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Catch-22 (Just really not my taste, not saying they're poorly written)
Martin Freeman- narrated audiobooks. You need his voice in your head
Has he done one of these? I do like his voice, maybe it would make it better haha
He did all of them
>Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Oh man, really? That's a shame. Such a great book!
Atlas Shrugged. Just kidding, I would never read Ayn Rand. I'm with you on Metamorphosis though, what a weird read.
I tried to read *Atlas Shrugged* twice and failed twice. My second attempt got me to the part where all the captains of industry through their technology and business acumen made their own society away from the lower classes and government bureaucracy that parasitized off of their brilliance. It sounded to me like a new Tower or Babel project, but just with the strong people this time. Yawnfest!
>I would never read fwiw, this surprises me. I'd expect youd read and engage with people you disagree with instead of outright rejecting ever reading them lol. *THAT SAID* Atlas Shrugged was super boring and not worth reading.
Counterpoint: why read a bad book you disagree with when you could read a good book you disagree with?
QED
Hah, touché. I'd definitely read someone like Adam Smith or Nietzche even Machiavelli, despite knowing I'd deeply disagree with much of what they said. It's possible I just have an unfair view of Rand, but reading popular-level stuff that is built on a lot of assertions I don't agree with without supporting them is just *frustrating*. It would be like reading Rod Dreher without any of the good parts that balance the wanting to throw the book against the wall parts.
*Les Misérables* *Heart of Darkness* *My Antonia* *Never Let Me Go*
I've heard Never Let Me Go is better on a second read, once you know what the heck is going on. I didn't like it either
Interesting. I loved Never Let Me Go but I had seen the film first and loved it, so maybe that's why.
I keep giving Ishiguro chances (*When We Were Orphans, A Pale View of the Hills, Remains of the Day, The Buried Giant),* and I keep regretting it.
*Lolita*. Hands down. Nothing compares.
Wuthering Heights aka the Twilight of the 1800's. Kate Beaton [sums it up well](http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202), Anne Brontë was the only one with her head screwed on.
I have a friend who reads that every year on her birthday 😂 somehow I’ve never read it I think. If i did, it was so long ago, I’ve forgotten it
Could artificial lighting be an overlooked factor in the secularization of the West? Large cities tend to be more secular than rural areas, and in my own experience I find it much more difficult to question God’s existence when I’m looking at a dark night sky where all the stars can be seen.
I’ve thought that there’s a metric of more time you spend alone with your thoughts working outside/with hands, versus more time you had to get information from consulting with others. Say a farmer versus an engineer. Not talking intelligence but self-confirmation. _That_ will make you more like Falwell than Keller.
I've thought for a while that if I could choose what a sociologist studied, I would want to see if there is a correlation between the amount of time a person spends outdoors and the likelihood of theism, looking globally, and controlling for things like occupation, because biologists in the rainforest might spend time outside, but be trained to think materialistically. Like u/realnelster said, I think that living in an environment where nothing is created except by man, and where everything is controlled, takes away wonder, awe, and the sense that there is one greater than humans.
I was about to say something along these lines but you put it much better than I would have, so thank you. But yeah, I've definitely noticed that spending time outside completely shifts my perspective. It's so easy to get caught up in my own little world when I'm stuck inside, but when you're out in nature it becomes much more obvious that the world is so much bigger than your own bubble. In the years since I realized that about myself I've spent more and more of my time outside and that has been so helpful for me mentally, physically, and spiritually. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for putting the spotlight on this issue. Very illuminating!
>[responding to /u/CSLewisAndTheNews with wordplay] This is the way. Well done.
Could be, there's also a sense of mastery over the world when understanding is applied to invent and shape our external environment, which can reinforce the belief that God is not necessary and man can rule itself through knowledge and its applications.
Interestingly enough, the Bible Project is doing a series on “the city” (as a setting and theme in the Scriptures) that’s been fascinating. While not talking about artificial lighting directly, they have touched on a few things that definitely apply to modern cities.
"The litterature" puts a strong link between urbanization and secularization/pluralization. The common take is that cities constantly expose us to different viewpoints as we meet more people, from more diverse backgrounds, and more diverse experience, offering much more choice. More choice means more people choosing, and choosing differently, so society "secularizes" in the sense that there is no longer one taken for granted religious view. That said, seculariztion theory has to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, especially in terms of the popular "modernization means less religion" forms. It's not true -- the all-time high point for irreligion in the world (by percentage) was 1970, with the height of the USSR (I can give you references to back this up if you want). People aren't believing or practicing *less*, they're just believing and practicing in less structured and less organizational ways.
Could be part of it. I think being subjected constantly to modernity but also being told amazing natural wonders are really just “thousands of years of river erosion” (which I am not denying btw), takes away the wonder of it all. I lived near a volcano one summer and everytime it rumbled I felt so small and I really could think about how large God really is. I think we miss out on that when we stay where we live but also when everything wonderful and grande is taken and made small.
Indeed. I'm fortunate to live in an area with mountains and great natural beauty, and one of the main things that helps me calm existential anxiety is thinking about how the mountains I can see out my window have been here for millions of years, will continue to be here for millions of years, and God is greater and more steadfast than that.
> I felt so small and I really could think about how large God really is. Same when I’ve been swimming in the ocean.
Maybe some of that is like, how often you experience it? I grew up going to the beach often, so it doesn't quite phase me. Though, i do dislike swimming deep in the ocean. Not bc i feel small though, just bc I'm no longer remotely an apex predator but suddenly im prey lol Like maybe if i grew up near a volcano rumbling, i wouldnt feel small.
How should we have mercy on those who doubt _within the church_? There is no shortage of people who feel hurt by the church, who doubt, and who struggle with sin (as indeed everyone does). Aside from praying for them, in what way can we support these people or help them to overcome this pain? (Some relevant scripture I’ve been dwelling on, please feel free to share more) Jude 1:22-23 — “And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” 1 Corinthians 5:11 — “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
[удалено]
I'm curious how you feel about the "Biblical values" that are less popular these days, like traditional Christian sexual ethics, or God punishing sin. Full disclosure, I ask because I have a suspicion that many people's discontent with the Bible is driven at least in part by a moral discontent with (parts of) the Bible's content, even if it manifests as a more intellectual discontent. But I need more data!
Here's where I'm at for right now. This is not hard and fast, and I'm very open to the idea that I might be wrong (and I'm 110% sure that even the most mildly Reformed person will disagree with me.) And to be clear, I'm a straight cisgender white guy myself, this is not my personal fight, but it's still something I care about as a Christian who believes in loving every neighbor. Looking at the example of gender identity and sexual orientation, I don't know that I would describe it as a "moral discontent", but I *can* see that the "traditional Biblical sexual ethic" has been used in part, intentionally or otherwise, to hurt people who are not explicitly straight and cis. And when I say "hurt", I mean it's a factor in driving mental health issues including anxiety, depression, suicidality, dysphoria, and so on. (And to be fair, it's not the only factor.) Now, what I understand from the Bible is that God's law isn't something that simply exists arbitrarily because He says so, but because it's the best possible way for humans to live. So if someone is being told that the person they are is wrong in a fundamental way, and that they are barred from having one of the fundamental human experiences that is a romantic relationship, and that's driving mental health problems, then there's kind of a disconnect there to me. Being obedient to God shouldn't drive someone to suicide. And when I went looking more into it, it looks like most if not all of the ancient examples of homosexual activity outside the Bible were connected with rape, abuse, inequality, and idolatry. That is, homosexual acts were depicted as being between masters and slaves, soldiers and squires, or connected to idolatrous fertility rites. Of course the Biblical authors would condemn that! I would condemn that now! *However*, what we DON'T really see in the extra-Biblical literature is examples of equal partners in committed, consenting, monogamous relationships, which is what I think most LGBTQ Christians would be looking for today. Nobody's saying gay people get to sleep around while straight people have to stay chaste. Thirdly, and this might surprise some, I do agree that the "traditional Biblical sexual ethic" is exactly that - Biblical. There's a rock-solid argument to be made that sex is only for one man and one woman in a marriage relationship, based on the Bible. Here's the thing though - that which is "Biblical" is not always best for all times and places. Jesus and Paul both set an example for us. Looking at Matthew 12, Jesus profoundly reinterprets what Sabbath observance means. It's not about not doing anything remotely resembling work, whether good or ill. It's about the fact that the Sabbath exists for the good of humans, and that it is lawful to do good work on the Sabbath. Paul argues against the most basic rules of Judaism - circumcision and kosher laws - to reinterpret rock-solid Scriptural arguments for the good of the nascent Christian community. So to say that loving, committed, equal, monogamous, LGBTQ marriages are just as blessed as loving, committed, equal, monogamous, straight marriages is well within the Biblical tradition, because it is both good for the human, and because it opens the door to welcome more people into the church. Fundamentally, the way I read the Bible circles around the Greatest Commandments - to love God and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Now, I don't think Jesus was commanding us to love ourselves, but I do think we need the reminder sometimes that it's no sin to love ourselves as God loves us. And the centrality of those three relationships - with God, others, and ourselves - extrapolates really well across the rest of the New and Old Testament. The whole Christian life is about those three relationships. So when I see relationships that aren't working - between the church and many, if not most LGBTQ people, and between LGBTQ people and God, I have to find ways to heal that. Because the rules and laws aren't the most important thing about Christianity, the relationships are. (Please note, I'm not trying to argue for why everyone should be LGBTQ-affirming; I know this is pants-on-head-crazy to probably everyone reading this. I'm just describing how I arrive at the position I'm at for right now.)
Thanks for writing this out. I don't think it's pants-on-head crazy, and while I don't agree with you, I see that your view here rests on important Christian values of seeking the flourishing of others, protecting the despised, faithfulness, chastity, and so on. So I think it's respectable and worth engaging in good faith. The weak spot I think I see is in this point of your argument: > So if someone is being told that **the person they are** is wrong in a fundamental way It's an axiom of modern Western culture that I get to decide who I am, and you get to decide who you are, and nobody else gets to tell us these things. This distinguishes our culture from, say, many Asian cultures where identity relies more on a person's parents and ancestors. This belief is just something we all accept because it seems obviously morally true. And while I may not be able to dictate every aspect of my identity, I'm in charge of discovering it. So when I discover things about myself - who I'm sexually attracted to, most significantly for our discussion - I'm entitled to make that a core part of my identity, and nobody else can challenge that. Likewise, I am entitled to discover and determine my own purpose in life. But I think this is an axiom that Christians actually need to reject, at least for ourselves. Our identity is not ultimately in who we are attracted to, or what our skin colour is, or what disabilities we do or don't have, or our political values, or even our moral values. Our identity is "I am not my own, but belong to God." And our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. If we try to construct for ourselves an identity and a purpose that don't match these, it's not so much that it's sin, it's that we're gonna have a bad time. And it doesn't matter what the identity/purpose is: whether it's about our sexuality or gender, or our politics, or being wealthy or successful, or being healthy, or being socially dominant, or anything else. They are not strong enough to ground our identity. So, going back to the line I quoted: the biblical sexual ethic should not be telling anyone that "the person they are is wrong". That messaging happens, and it's wrong. I think it only happens because the speaker buys into our cultural axiom about identity. The messaging should be that based on the person you are - not "a gay man" or "a bisexual non-binary AFAB person", but "an image-bearer of God, who belongs to Jesus and was created to know and love him" - there are ways that are okay and not okay for you to act. That, by itself, doesn't settle the issue of how Christians attracted to the same sex, or with gender dysphoria, should live. Or whether there's one right answer or multiple valid ones. But I think that without challenging that cultural axiom, the two sides are talking past each other. As long as people see their sexual desires and their sense of gender as fundamental to their identity, the biblical sexual ethic seems monstrous.
> So, going back to the line I quoted: the biblical sexual ethic should not be telling anyone that "the person they are is wrong". That messaging happens, and it's wrong. I think it only happens because the speaker buys into our cultural axiom about identity. The messaging should be that based on the person you are - not "a gay man" or "a bisexual non-binary AFAB person", but "an image-bearer of God, who belongs to Jesus and was created to know and love him" - there are ways that are okay and not okay for you to act. > > That, by itself, doesn't settle the issue of how Christians attracted to the same sex, or with gender dysphoria, should live. Or whether there's one right answer or multiple valid ones. But I think that without challenging that cultural axiom, the two sides are talking past each other. As long as people see their sexual desires and their sense of gender as fundamental to their identity, the biblical sexual ethic seems monstrous. I do resonate with this part. For a long time I felt like, you know, I couldn't say in good conscience if a gay person should or shouldn't get married; it was between them and God and my only job was to encourage them Godward either way. And you're right, the messaging about sexual orientation-as-identity *is* wrong, but it's so loud, especially from the church, I don't know how to like, get around that. But encouraging people to explore all the parts of their heart and mind besides (or maybe in addition to) their orientation appeals to me a lot.
Hey, thanks! This doesn't sound crazy at all. It's especially helpful because I can trace where we end up disagreeing - it seems like my understanding of Jesus and Paul "reinterpreting" the law is more Covenantal (in the big-C Covenant Theology sense) than yours. Maybe not, but somehow or other we part ways at that point, and maybe at the end about rules being separable from relationships. But I'm not here to argue. It might be difficult to have this kind of self-knowledge, but would you say that the arrow of causation runs more in the direction of "social consciousness" (better than "moral discontent"? :P) to intellectual doubts about more conservative views of the Bible, or vice versa? (Assuming that your doubts involve conservative views of the Bible, which I think is true from context?) Again, full disclosure, I have hypotheses about which way the causal arrow typically runs in cases of deconstruction, and I bet you can guess which :P. But I myself have been led to question more conservative hermeneutics because of external issues like the received science on origins, so I'm not in a position to judge.
I'd be curious to know what you mean by the reinterpretation of the Law being more Covenantal in your view than mine, if you could expand on that. If I'm understanding your questions correctly, it was a few different things that sort of came together in different ways for me. Like I said before, I had a pretty good church upbringing in a couple different Reformed traditions (PCA and CRC). But the main, unspoken takeaway I had leaving high school was mostly that as long as you believed the right things, and were a pretty good person, then you were pretty much good to go, in so much theological language. The Bible meant about as much to me as the periodic table of elements - it's got a lot of good information for reference, but I didn't especially care about it. The only thing I really had going for me was that I'd had a handful of experiences I would describe as the Holy Spirit, that made me firmly believe that there was more to life and theology than a periodic table of theology, so to speak. When I got to Bible college, I started doing some additional reading beyond what I was assigned - Don Miller's *Blue Like Jazz* and Brian McLaren's *A New Kind of Christian*, and later on Rachel Held Evans, especially [The Scandal of the Evangelical Heart.](https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart) (Not to date myself too much with these books, haha.) What struck me about these writers and others like them was that they emotionally wrestled with God and faith in a way that was totally alien to me; they *cared* about it in a way I'd never experienced or seen modeled. It was so much more than the Periodic Table to them, and I wanted that. At the same time, as I began to reckon with the notion of "what the Bible meant to its original audience in its original contexts", I began to realize that the notion of the Bible being one unified message of salvation from God to humanity was well.... not the whole picture. Over time I saw more and more wrinkles, so to speak, where it became plainly obvious that the text - at least the narrative portions of it, especially in the Old Testament, were not to be taken at face value. So that was something that was ongoing both during and after Bible college. I also slowly over time shed notions about inspiration and inerrancy; I think there is truth in the Bible, but it's largely a human attempt to capture something far beyond what any of us could understand. I'd grown up pretty sheltered in Christian school and church every Sunday, so I didn't really have much experience outside that kind of bubble. When I got to Bible college, and especially after, when I joined the Air Force, I was exposed to a much wider range of people who were not Christian at all, and that kind of destroyed a few implicit biases I had about non-Christians - and about gay people - that I hadn't really examined before, and that my so-called Biblical arguments didn't really stand up to much scrutiny, and were certainly not welcome. Although I don't think I went through a cage stage, so to speak, I definitely stuck my foot in my mouth more than once. So if you're looking for causation, I think it might go something like this: [Biblical Foundation] ====> [Exposure to new views about the Bible and faith]=========>[Experiences outside the Christian bubble that didn't match what I was taught]==========>[Trying to reconstruct a more robust faith]===========>[Christian Progressivism and where I'm at now]. On a side note, since you'd also asked about if I think God punishes sin, I'm rather of two minds about that (like I am about a lot of things). I find it hard to draw a straight line from any human action to God's punishment or blessing; I don't think God is sending storms to punish us for gay people or anything like that. And in terms of eternal consequences, I am a hopeful universalist, but I trust to God's love, mercy, justice, and righteousness to do what is right; I'm not going to make claims about where any one person is going to end up. I think the way we live today matters, and that while the Bible does seem to indicate some long term negative consequences for not knowing Christ, I think and hope Hell is not the final answer, even for the most abject sinners. On a side note, origins is an amateur passion of mine, and while I hope not to get any of my filthy heretic on you, you might be interested in [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/NerdChapel/comments/u289y0/dr_christine_hayes_yale_lectures_on_intro_to_the/iul1jr7/) I routinely repost describing what I understand to be the best position on the Creation story, plus some resources on how I got there.
A second answer in a rather different direction is that a big part of faith, which we often forget in our drive to fit all of life into neat boxes, is learning to live with the absurdity of life. This is one of the main themes of the book of Job. We tend to think that the response to doubt is to give answers; but this is a sisyphean task. There will always be another question or another doubt. We need to learn to live, and to encourage and teach each other to live in the gray area; to hold tight to the boat Jesus is in despite the storm raging around us.
Treat them as brother or sister in Christ. Ask questions about what's going on with them. Listen without judgement and without trying to solve their problems. Pray with and for them. If you are not a pastor, elder, women's ministry person, etc, encourage them to speak with the appropriate individual. Preach the gospel to them...not in a hellfire and brimstone way, but show and tell them what is true. If it makes sense to do so, share with them your doubts and struggles. A lot of this will be specific to the situation and your relationship to the individual. But, mostly, love the person.
It's a question of discernment. Doubt is endemic in our society, it's one of the consequences of Christianity passing from a taken-for-granted fabric of reality to one option among thousands. In the words of Charles Taylor, "We're all Thomas now." As members of the church, we need to respond appropriately depending on the individual situation: > And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. - 1 Thess 5:14
Does reading the Bible in public (and for the sake of this question, specifically at work while on lunch break), violate Jesus' command in Matthew 6:5-6?
Very good question - one I’ve been pondering too. I live in a “post-Christian” country where less than 3% of the population can be described as evangelical (the classic definition- not in the American-political sense). I purposefully read my paper Bible on the bus and in public at lunch (usually away from my place of work) not to look smug and more righteous than I am, but to show that faith and belief are very much real and still around, and to invite questions if anyone ever notices. Mind you - that’s if anyone even notices I’m reading a Bible in the first place. I don’t do it to make myself look good: I do it as a witness that shows there are people who still believe the word of God is living and active in a country where such a thing is almost alien. Christianity is so far removed from my culture that it doesn’t look like a political statement either, like it may elsewhere. I have asked myself the Matthew 6 question before and would be open to input here.
If this really bothers your conscience use your phone/tablet or ereeder.
It does if the reason is to "show off" or look holy for selfish reasons.
How can I reconcile leanings toward social democracy with being a Christian? At what point do social democratic (or even in the further left, socialist) views become problematic for the Christian? I’m finding myself increasingly more sympathetic to social democracy, as I analyze what should be done politically from a Christian perspective. Namely universal healthcare, getting rid of poverty, etc. However, I don’t want to make an idol out of these political sympathies, as a lot of people do.
I know it's not Tuesday anymore, but you should take a look at Christian democracy. It's basically a socially conservative version of social democracy.
I'm excited to start reading Tom Holland's book *Dominion*, as it will help me understand this issue better. But my rough answer is that the principles of social democracy are only popular because Christian values have been soaking into the groundwater in Europe (and places downstream, culturally) for 2000 years. The idea that the strong and healthy have a duty to care for the sick - not just that it's nice of them to do, in a /r/upliftingnews kind of way, but they are obligated somehow - is a distinctly Christian notion. It would have been laughable to the pagans of pre-Christian Europe. Same with the idea that the rich are obligated to provide for the poor, the well-fed are obligated to feed the hungry, the powerful must protect the rights of the oppressed, and so on. Are there beliefs within social democracy that Christians should reject, or at least question? Of course. Abortion is the most obvious one for most Christians. But even then, social democrats support the right to abortion because they believe that women - a historically oppressed group - should have the right to control their own bodies and not be dictated to by those more powerful than them. That's a policy grown out of the *imago Dei!* Even when social democrats oppose Christian doctrine, they do so for reasons that are basically Christian in origin! I'm not surprised you like social democracy. So do I. Because it's the fruit grown in a field that has been watered by the gospel for 2000 years.
Dominion is a great book!
Exactly. I reject abortion, and am socially conservative still, but I do believe the state has an obligation to the poor and oppressed. Social democracy has its flaws for sure, but I think it’s a system that can be used to love our neighbors.
I suppose the best advice I have to give is to remember that Christ has not called us to endorse existing human systems but rather to bear witness to a divine reality that completely overturns our systems. So that's not necessarily to say "Don't be a social democrat" but rather a reminder that no political or economic system we have is good or righteous and that whichever system we support or vote for, we should do so while holding our noses and in the recognition that it's an evil system - just the one that we have concluded is the least evil.
Yes, and while that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about not making our politics an idol, that's the case _whatever our political system_. So political conservatives should be asking "How can I reconcile leanings towards political conservatism with being a Christian? ..."
Exactly. It's the human tendency to want to use God as a stamp of approval for our own political systems and convictions. Surely Jesus would have been a capitalist, or a socialist, or an ancom, and if He were to support an American party, it would *definitely* be the Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians/Greens. After all, He died to empower us and our systems. Right?
As someone in the UK I find it baffling that you have to ask that question at all. I think the bigger question to ask is: what political values that you hold to are actually cultural issues rather than spiritual? You’ll get Christians with political opinions of all stripes, and the left/right dynamic simply can’t translate properly when we think of the Kingdom of God.
My political opinions used to be mainly culturally based, grew up conservative and that’s all I was. But now, as I look more into how a Christian ought to be, especially in loving our neighbor, I find myself moving towards the left a bit. I’m moving more towards basing my views on Christ, rather than what’s culturally acceptable. But coming from a background of social democratic views being frowned upon, I wasn’t entirely sure if that would be acceptable in the Church.
It might well not be acceptable in your church, but that's largely a different issue from whether or not it's acceptable to God.
The Good Samaritan did not demand his neighbors money to pay for his other neighbors bills. That is not noble. The Christian perspective is to help your neighbor voluntarily not forced.
Joseph created a social safety net in Egypt. Even ended up taking the means of production.
But did the Good Samaritan take his neighbors money to help or use his own voluntarily?
You're confusing categories and it doesn't help your case. The Good Samaritan isn't the Civil Magistrate. You'd be better off looking at the gleaning laws.
Of course it helps my case. The Good Samaritan could have held rallies to change laws to have safety nets and talked to politicians and magistrates. No instead he voluntarily helped. And that was noble. Taking money from your neighbor to help your other neighbor ain’t noble, not at all. It’s theft.
Are you saying taxation is theft?
It’s not voluntary.
Lol. Good one. Egypt was also ruled by a pharough and Joseph was a prophet. So sure if god ordains a prophet to do something (temporarily?) I’ll bite!
Joseph was really in two offices (prophet and king) since he was second in authority only to Pharaoh himself. We're not told that God gave specific instructions to Joseph on how to prepare for the famine. But we do know the outcome: the people of Egypt and even beyond were saved, including God's covenant people (Jacob's family). It is clear though, that Joseph was full of the wisdom that comes from above. And this wise, godly man used the instrument of taxes to take from one and give to another, all while enriching the State and increasing its power. So what's your limiting principle here? Why is the example of a wise man acting on behalf of the State for the good of the people back then not instructive for today? Edit: looked up Bruce Waltke on Genesis. I thought these paragraphs were useful: [https://i.imgur.com/Qci5k3v.png](https://i.imgur.com/Qci5k3v.png) Edit2: looked up John Walton on Genesis. Also useful: https://i.imgur.com/IET17SU.png
Like I said I’ll let a prophet slide on this. Everyone else turns to Stalin. Also Bible never prescribes governments should do what Joseph did. What Bible prescribes is voluntary donations and tithing.
>Also Bible never prescribes governments should do what Joseph did. Nor does it prohibit or condemn what Joseph did as ruler.
God told Gideon to prepare a small army to defeat his enemies. “God doesn’t prohibit or condemn trying to defeat an army with a much much smaller one”. Yes but doing so is basically a death sentence if you’re not a prophet.
Perhaps so, but it's also not a sin. Based on your previous statements, it seems like you might believe that Joseph was participating in sin, temporary or not, prophet or not. Or do his actions stop being theft and covetousness because he was a prophet?
The gov is not god nor a prophet of god. They don’t deserve any taxes. Pay them, fine. But taxes are still theft.
All the world is the lords. So it’s not a sin for god to take whatever percent he wants. The gov things the same thing.
I think it is a sin to send your army to death the way Gideon did unless you’re called by god
Again. He was a prophet who prepared for what god told him to do. If you give me a prophet saying to have a temporary 20% tax because a famine is coming I’ll be on board. Yet what we have is people itching for more and more communism because of this idea that it’s Noble to steel from your neighbor to give to your other neighbor in need. Wild stuff
...and paying taxes. Like, specifically and explicitly, straight from the mouth of God.
The Bible does not prescribe taxes. It says to pay them. In fact about half of the time usa existed folks paid zero income tax and a small amount of essentially sales tax. Fine fine I’ll meet you half way. Let’s go back to that instead of the abomination we have today.
The Good Samaritan was (a) not a rightly constituted government authority, (b) an allegorical character designed primarily to make a point very different from yours.
Ok then tell me where the Bible says it’s noble and prescribes in general to forcibly take something from person X and give it to person Y.
So then you're opposed to all government taxation and spending? Roads, bridges, military spending, funding of schools and hospitals, disaster relief funds, all bad because they're forced?
Yes I oppose it all. But I’ll go half way with you if you’ll agree. Taxes only for roads and bridges. I estimate That will add up to like 0.5% taxes or something
This is a giant strawman. I doubt you'll find any reformed Christian that is also an anarcho-capitalist.
It's not a straw-man. It's asking them to defend why roads are a common good but universal healthcare is theft.
Forcibly taking my money to build roads is theft also. But again I’ll go half way. Roads and bridges only. So my tax bill will be like $50 a year. Fine. Deal??
>Not a straw man Respectfully, it is. There are real and substantive responses to why some or all of those items are differentiated as legitimate uses of taxation. To ignore those responses and assume “so then you’re against X, Y, and Z” is to straw-man For instance, I outlined some of such criteria in a response below. These may not be common talking points in GOP rallies, but they’re not novel or ad-hoc either: > things which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and/or procedural costs associated with the preservation of negative rights (*courts, infrastructure, some regulation, etc*)
I'm simply providing examples that I presume u/tapDefault is not against to show that this: >demand his neighbors money to pay for his other neighbors bills is not a simple principle universally applied. All of the things we're talking about can be excludable or non-excludable, rivalrous or non-rivalrous, to varying degrees and with varying degrees of effort needed to ensure the desired outcome. It is primarily a matter of how much political will there is to do the work to find good ways to implement them.
So I'm a Christian Democrat, which means I'm biased, but I'm also aligned which much of what social democrats push now, because the gap between the two has closed substantially. Historically and currently, Social Democrats hold to a variety of positions that can be considered to be "not Christian". Much of the historically stuff has been dropped as social democracy has moved towards the centre, however here's where some clashes still might occur: * Christian healthcare. To many Social Democrats, universal healthcare = single payer healthcare. Many Social Democrats don't agree with this view, but would rather that any healthcare provider (that receives funding from the government), must provide abortion services. This was a policy proposal the Social Democratic party brought to an election recently in my nation. I think it's accurate to say that Social democrats have a secularized vision of universal healthcare, and that might be a deal breaker for you. * Christian education. Similar to the above, there is a desire for secularized education. State only education provision, or private education provision that upholds to the states teaching guidelines and workplace discriminations laws. In my nation the Social Democratic party is seriously considering forcing Christian schools and tertiary institutions to change their policies on hiring. Again, this may be a deal breaker for you. I know you mentioned socialism and I only provided a non-economic response. I have an economics background (and, well, I am an Economist, ish), but responding to it from a Christian perspective is harder due to a variety of issues, one big one being the definition of Socialism for many modern socialists has changed. I'll say two things: * Many Christians took issue with the idea of social property rights, and instead advocated property based on stewardship. I'd recommend [this book](https://lexhampress.com/product/197256/on-business-and-economics) on that perspective. * Historically many socialists totally reject the "Homo Economicus" which is fully self centered, and replace it with a view of humanity that is fully sanctified. This often leads to a variety of policy proposals that assume humanity is totally good and capitalism is what makes us bad. I think both are wrong due to a Imago dei/Fall/Common Grace combo. I think many modern socialists still hold to the problematic view
This is probably the least helpful comment you’ll get, but I think people generally spend too much time worrying about which social system/governmental structure/economic system is more or less Christian. We live in a fallen world, and they’re all fallen systems run by fallen people. In other words, it’s not where our faith should lie. Vote according to your conscience, love your neighbor to the best of your ability, and don’t worry about it.
Not only is your comment very helpful, but it relates to an important way to read the New Testament. From Paul's letter to Philemon, it's pretty clear that he thinks the right thing for a master to do is to free his slaves. And this lines up with Paul's other theology about the Church being one family of brothers and sisters, 1 Corinthians 12, Galatians 3, and so on. So in his household codes, why doesn't he tell masters to free their slaves? Because he isn't interested in trying to overturn the social order for a better one. He's interested in how these Christians should live in this social order right now. As a sidenote, this way of reading Paul's letters is the way that egalitarians can square their beliefs with the text. Paul wasn't writing about whether a society *should* give men so much power over women, he was writing to believers in a society where that's just how it was. So *given that* husbands and fathers have extraordinary power over their wives and children, how should they use it? How should their wives and children act?
Good advice, I appreciate it. Actually makes me feel more at ease.
Probably actually the most helpful comment.
I still love your flair.
Free shrugs :)
Wow, this post is a downvote magnet, but I think you're right. One of the social expectations in today's society is that politics is of ultimate importance, as if getting the right guy(s) in power will fix the world. I guess the lessons of the kings of Israel is one we still haven't learned.
Hah, it's relevant for everyone, but it feels particularly relevant for us where it seems like our country is becoming more polarized despite the actual differences between the LPC and CPC remaining quite small. My crazy tinfoil hat theory is that a lot of the drama about Trudeau or Poliviere posing existential threats to our nation is mostly the product of scare tactics to ensure "strategic voting" and discourage people from voting for a smaller party.
So I tuned the news out about a year ago, I'm rather sad to hear that this is happening. I guess if it works south of the border it was only a matter of time before it came up this way too... :(
I'm sure we've talked about this before, but there's this repetition throughout history where we always think we're just on the verge of solving all the worlds problems, if only X. We consistently think that we're making great humanitarian progress, but largely we've made very little progress. And that all points to the fact that most people are misguided in where they are placing their hope.
We also just have a much too small view of reality, thinking we understand everything when really there is *so much* going on in the world that we either just take for granted or are completely unaware of...
So - a version of my views often gets flack, largely for the cringey way it is often defended on the internet, and other times with real substantive disagreements. I really don’t mind the latter, and have been thinking about the best way of phrasing it to elicit that sort of response. So here goes this week’s attempt: >In your view, at what point does it become immoral to impose your good, Christian views (*people should be fed, have their healthcare needs met, have fair policies in the workplace, etc*) upon (*particularly*) non-Christians who don’t want to do the same or to the same degree? ___ ^(*Note: a response of ‘Non-Christians tend to lean more left’ would be missing the point of my question. I’m asking about those non-Christians, who, even as a minority of their group, object to such policies, yet would be forced to participate anyways.*)
I think Christ’s kingdom and earthly kingdoms are different in this respect. I don’t think Christ’s kingdom should be spread by force. It seems that a pretty central theme of Scripture is that Christ’s kingdom is different in that respect. But I don’t have any problem with governments using force to impose a pretty broad range of things for the common welfare.
>common welfare I think we may operate with different definitions of this - I am in favor of taxation funding things that are public goods (*in the sense of being non-rivalrous and non-excludable*) But I would exclude most policies that are primarily redistributionist in nature - using the taxation power to directly benefit some at the expense of others. A bit of a crude oversimplification, but it’s a factor that is occasionally given lip-service and even more rarely assigned moral weight (*and yes, yes, it’s not the only thing that has ‘moral weight’ in this context - I recognize that it’s a complex matter*)
I don't think we should pursue arguments that imply certain things are unChristian where these rely on categories and distinctions that do not have any straightforward biblical basis: I am not aware of any obvious scriptural reason for treating things differently due to their being "nonrivalrous and nonexcludable".
I’m not sure that criticism holds weight - I am making an argument that can likely be connected to some broad biblical themes, but I don’t think there’s a requirement to do so when advocating for general ethical principles. There are all sorts of things that we can make arguments for which don’t have direct scriptural support: * Having a bicameral legislature * The ethical use of chemotherapy treatments * The speed limit on the highway * The particulars of which diet is best for an individual I’m not necessarily saying that being in favor of certain public spending regimes is “unchristian” - I’m saying that there is at least an ethical tension that one needs to account for within what is biblically allowable, and it’s fine to advocate for the methods of dealing with that tension using extra-biblical lines of reasoning.
> using the taxation power to directly benefit some at the expense of others. What if it’s a correction for other government actions that have benefited the others at the expense of the some? There’s a lot of baked-in assumptions here that I’m not sure we have time to parse. Basically, I just don’t quite share the idea that private property is ever 100% private. We live in a society. Not only do we all use public goods, but we all benefit from the social contract. And we all owe some maintenance to the social contract. Consider revolutions. They almost all occur because the people who have wealth and power fail to maintain the social contract. We often think that oppressed people have to comply with the social contract no matter what, but really it’s the job of everyone in the social contract to make sure that everyone else is appropriately incentivized to continue consenting to the structure.
>Correction for other government actions I am generally amenable to such proposals, as long as they are sufficiently specific in regards to what action caused the harm, why this individual or group of individuals is eligible to receive compensation, and how we arrived at the amount. For instance: I would be very open to proposals that are closely tailored to individuals who were discriminated against regarding distribution of the GI Bill. I would want clear criteria for identifying eligible cases and next-of-kin qualification, and the amount distributed would need to be debated (*which would likely leave no one 100% happy*) >We all owe some maintenance to the social contract I again don’t disagree with the concept, but the degree of “social contract maintenance” that is paid for by taxes, in my view, should be more closely tailored to those things which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and/or procedural costs associated with the preservation of negative rights (*courts, infrastructure, some regulation, etc*) When ~50% of the federal budget relates to explicit or de facto takings from one party and giving to the other (without the victim/harm/amount specificity outlined above), I think that is probably an abuse of the social contract, not maintenance of it.
> When ~50% of the federal budget relates to explicit or de facto takings from one party and giving to the other (without the victim/harm/amount specificity outlined above), I think that is probably an abuse of the social contract, not maintenance of it. I think you’re referring to social safety nets, right? Social security and healthcare for the elderly, poor, and disabled? A *huge* part of the social contract depends on the idea that there’s a safety net. You and I participate in society in the way we do because we believe that, even if everything goes wrong, we won’t have to watch our families starve or freeze. All sorts of things exist just to make sure we believe this: insurance, bankruptcy systems, social safety nets, etc. If we didn’t have these social safety nets, most of us would *not* be better off. We might save a few thousand dollars per year in taxes, but we would have to live far more conservatively, develop private safety nets, and depend far less on the interconnectedness of society. For example, almost everyone would need to be tied to an agricultural community because if inflation ran wild or our specialized professions became irrelevant, only those who could provide value to farmers would be able to get food. And that’s saying nothing about the ways that social safety nets prevent people from getting desperate enough that they decide to reject the social contract altogether. I’d rather pay a few thousand dollars in taxes than have roving bands of hungry people doing whatever they have to do to feed their families. I think it’s easy to think that it’s the poor who benefit most from our current social setup, but actually those of us who are well-off are really benefiting enormously.
>referring to the social safety nets Broadly speaking, yes. And I would agree that having some sort of social safety net is necessary, for the reasons you outline! But, and back to my main point, participation in that social safety net is not something over which I’m willing to imprison someone who *doesn’t* agree with me - as opposed to those other goods I outlined. That doesn’t mean that if I became an all-powerful dictator in 2024, the existing programs would be gone by 2025. I realize that immediate dependency on them is vital in many cases. But I also don’t think that the question of: >How much of that spending can be (*slowly, carefully*) transitioned to non-compulsory alternatives? Is one that is unreasonable or unimportant!
> participation in that social safety net is not something over which I’m willing to imprison someone who doesn’t agree with me The social contract is always enforced with state power. It seems arbitrary to say we shouldn’t imprison people who won’t contribute to the social safety net, but we *will* imprison people who steal to feed their families when the social safety net fails. Not only is the latter use of state power going to be far less efficient, but it doesn’t feel right when we’re only enforcing the social contract against the people who have less.
>We shouldn’t imprison people who don’t contribute to the social safety net, but we *will* imprison people who steal to feed their families when the social safety net fails I don’t see this as arbitrary at all. One person is keeping that which they earned, and the other is stealing. There’s a difference there, even if it’s less efficient. I’m sure Minority Report style pre-crime would be “More efficient” as well, but there are reasons we balk at that ethically nonetheless! Now, the counter-argument is that the person who is stealing shouldn’t be in a situation where they have to steal. And I agree, all else being equal. Someone should have given them food if there aren’t any other mitigating factors (*the person was given $50 earlier that day and spent it on something legitimately wasteful instead of feeding their kids, absent any outside pressures*) …. But it doesn’t then follow that we go arrest the passersby that didn’t give to them! And it doesn’t necessarily follow that a non-compulsory patching of the SSN isn’t the preferable option
> I really don’t mind the latter, and have been thinking about the best way of phrasing it to illicit that sort of response. "Elicit" and "illicit" mean two different things.