Paul's Passing Thoughts

Putinanity, Cuba, Bill 1062, and Why Christians Need to Shut Up

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 27, 2014

ppt-jpeg4I won’t go completely postal on my fellow Christians because I too once believed that it would be just wonderful if Jerry Falwell was President of the United States. And as a Christian, I have never been interested in Mike Huckabee being President because the world is a dangerous place and the last thing we need is some cornball from Mayberry RFD as leader of the free world.

Let us remember that Jesus could have run for President of the world, and would have won hands down, and could have summoned Michael the archangel to pay the world a little visit if people didn’t like it, but He didn’t. This should cause us to take part in a lost art, especially among Christians, known as “pondering.”

Christians, in our culture, speak out on a lot of things because they are free to do so. America is an open society to everyone. This is not to be confused with democracies that are democratically run by the elitists only. That’s a democratic caste system. In a truly open society, people are free to speak openly whether informed or uninformed. Unfortunately, Christians have cornered the market on uninformed free speech. Worse yet, it’s speech predicated on misinformation concerning what we are supposed to be experts at: the Bible.

As director of the TANC research institute, three years has taught me this: Christians don’t even understand the gospel, much less complicated world affairs. Yet, within Christianity, there is endless debate about various and sundry issues complimented by Scripture stacking along with an absurd claim of societal moral authority. Look, when people in our society have problems, they go to a psychologist or tune into Dr. Phil, and if they go to a pastor for anything more than instruction on what color of car to buy (we wouldn’t want a color symbolic of something we were unaware of), he is going to send you to a psychologist anyway.

This is why being a Christian in America right now is very exciting to me because it’s an adventure, and adventures are always fun when you partake with other people and you experience that adventure together. What is the adventure? We Christians don’t know anything; it’s an adventure of learning. I know, I know, listening to what others want us to know and pulling the rest from where the sun doesn’t shine is much easier, but the results are most unfortunate.

For instance, our research indicates that the VAST majority of Christians do not know the difference between grammatical interpretation versus redemptive interpretation of the Scriptures. These are the only two approaches to interpreting the Bible in Evangelical circles, and yield antithetical results in regard to truth and reality itself. But yet, Christians who do not even know how their own pastors interpret reality are shamelessly weighing in on what they perceive as the exclusive property of Christians: morality.

Why? Because our world is divided between Christians and non-Christians, the former being the only authority on morality. It’s ok to argue about morality in-camp—that’s our way of better defining our “expertise” to the world, and the absurdity of it all is evident. The challenge for Christians is to do life better than the world, but we think we hold that position by default; not so, that is a position earned through wisdom.

Hence, most American Christians think the separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state. State bad; Christianity good. Therefore, if the state is influenced by Christianity, that’s good! This has led to the recent phenomenon of Putinanity, a new form of Christianity:

“Gee-wiz, look, even Vladimir Putin of Russia is reaching out to the Eastern Orthodox Church in his country. I wish our politicians had that much sense!”

And Christians breathe a little easier in regard to Russia accordingly; they think this is like Putin agreeing to do lunch with Joni Eareckson Tada every Monday at noon. What Christians don’t understand is that the separation of church and state was designed to keep the state and the church separate from each other for the protection and freedom of mankind in general.

Church historian John Immel has a superb article on Putinanity that every Christian should read before they weigh in on Facebook. No, Russia is not seizing the international moral high ground from the US because Putin is getting in bed with the church, in fact, as Immel points out in the article, this should send cold chills up and down our spines. Immel lays out the historical background leading up to this contemporary happening that is not an anomaly by any stretch of the informed imagination.

And this is a by-point worth mentioning: Christians do not ask why any event takes place as if events take place in a vacuum. It’s ALWAYS the what, not the why. Example: endless articles concerning confusion over what pastor John Piper does. Some have even suggested that he does these things to get attention. No, if you really understand Piper by following the philosophical paper trail, you know that there is a why for everything he does, and the why may be closer to Putinanity than you think.

Neither is it far from the reality that mass death is always preceded by a promise of paradise. In the same way that a US delegation returned state side and proclaimed Cuba a socialist paradise, Jim Jones promised the same thing until the day 900 of his followers drank from the community Kool-Aid vat. Those who flew from the US to join Jones’ community in Guyana and lived to tell about it, state that they knew they were in big trouble the second they drove through the front gates. Jones was strongly endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown as Jones was part of the San Francisco socialist political machine. In regard to the recent Cuban adoring US delegation, they were called on the carpet by Marco Rubio.

If Christians knew their Bibles better, they would know that God ordained governments to serve mankind for the good of mankind. Government is a servant, not the enforcer of every Christian moralist idea that comes down the pike. The framers of the American Constitution never cited Romans 13 once, but were in agreement with it. Know also that God writes the works of His law on the heart of EVERY person born into the world, and their consciences either accuse or excuse based on that law ( Rom 2:12-15). If Christians aren’t careful, the world can often understand that law better than we do, and that is all too often the case.

This brings me to Arizona bill 1062, and another unfortunate example. Christians weigh in like this: Christian photographers good; homosexuals bad. Government enforcing the right for Christian photographers to refuse to do a homosexual marriage—good, and Putin says, “amen my brothers.” In many countries around the world, homosexuality is a capital offence as well as adultery, and for that matter, my granddaughter would have been put to death in Calvin’s Geneva for throwing a snowball at a pastor’s wife, especially since the offence took place in the sanctuary to boot.

Let me just narrow this issue down to my own family. I am close to family members who are homosexual. We get along great regardless of the fact that they know where I stand. How do they know? They tried to convince me that the Bible condoned it, and that was a conversation initiated by them. I stated my case in no uncertain terms. We get along great because the sensibilities of both parties are respected as a matter of conscience. This is very similar to how Christians who disagree should relate in regard to Romans 14. Sure, the Bible is specific revelation, and conscience is more general, but the latter is why we can live at peace with all men as much as it depends on us.

In fact, NFL players coming out of the closet, which is totally unnecessary, are in one sense demanding the approval of others for their own selfish reasons. Government shouldn’t enforce their supposed right to violate the sensibilities of others by forcing an employer to hire them anymore than Christians should want the Government in people’s bedrooms. So where do you draw the line? Conscience. Most people agree that pedophilia should be against the law, and so it is.

Admittedly, these are VERY difficult questions, but they should be considered by Christians via pondering and not pandering to the dictates of pastors frothing at the mouth while beating their pulpits on Sunday morning. That’s just plain ignorance.

All in all, this post is designed to provoke thought, but there is one place that I can drive a stake: contemporary Christianity is the product of the mindless following of tradition. I believe Bible wisdom is a wide-open frontier in this country. Granted, it is an old frontier, but mostly unchartered by Western bobbleheaded Christians.

Until that changes, we should keep our arrogant despotic mouths shut. Ignorance will not save people from the judgment to come. God does not entrust eternal matters to stupidity.

paul

Tagged with: ,

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 27, 2014 at 4:31 PM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

    Like

  2. Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 27, 2014 at 10:22 PM

    Well, we will see if Putin doesn’t end-up enforcing Eastern Orthodoxy over time. There is a first time for everything.

    Like

    • james jordan's avatar james jordan said, on February 27, 2014 at 11:48 PM

      That’s kind of like the “gateway” argument John was complaining about on the root/fruit post. “Putin banning homosexual propaganda is the ‘gateway’ to forcing everyone to be Russian Orthodox.” Yep, just like Bush banning Federal dollars from being used to start new stem cell lines was the “gateway” to Bush forcing everyone to attend the Methodist church with him.

      Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM

        No one is saying that the relationship will develop into a church state, we are saying that historically, it always has. But again, there is a first time for everything. However, I think the biggest point is being missed here: the overall positive response to this relationship shows the fundamental misunderstanding of Americanism by Americans–especially Christians who excel at ignorance dressed in academic garb.

        Like

  3. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on February 28, 2014 at 9:28 AM

    Well here are some facts that might be missing in the whole Putin thing- Russia is dwindling in population, AMONG the Russian people; Russian women and men are not getting married like they use to. However, the Muslim population is increasing in number and that spells a problem for Putin. Homosexuality does nothing for the population ( of course, just stating the obvious) , so Putin is having to put on his “morality” garb and hook up with the church to get this solved ( this is also maybe why he is trying to expand his waistline by absorbing the Ukraine into Russian territory). So, first we see that Putin could probably care less about homosexuals, but only because he does not want Muslims to take over. Second, this a dangerous thing when church and state do join forces- like Paul said it will have a disastrous effect. History always tells the same tale.

    Like

  4. Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM

    Political essays are risky for this doctrine hound, I usually like to leave this stuff to John, but the conversation here is great–please continue.

    Like

  5. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on February 28, 2014 at 2:07 PM

    I just get this stuff from listening to my historian buff husband of mine. He is quite knowledgeable on modern and political history.

    Like

  6. Glenn's avatar Glenn said, on February 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    Hi Paul,

    I would like to chip in my two cents worth on this topic. It probably won’t help, and may hurt, the discussion but I would like to provide a little context about what I believe. First, I believe we were created by God with free will (“soft libertarian” free will to be precise) and I also believe that we are expected by our creator to use that will to make good decisions. So I always feel the burden of doing the right thing in the right way (“right” being defined by God).

    Secondly I don’t believe that any of these trends we are witnessing (e.g. the push for “gay” marriage) are random or by accident. I do view life here on earth as a struggle between good and evil. I don’t know if you have ever heard the terms “Angelic Conflict” or “Invisible War” but it is an idea that I hold to and colors how I view current events. I don’t expect you necessarily accept this but it is what I believe.

    Two fundamental freedoms that we used to take for granted in this country are freedom of association and freedom of conscience (this includes freedom of religion). Without these inalienable rights I don’t see how anyone can call themselves free. Compelling Christian business people to provide services for gay couples getting “married” violates both of those freedoms. It almost seems from your post that you think that the Christians who declined to provide these services were wrong. Even if they were isn’t the State compelling them to provide these services also wrong? Freedom should work both ways. I should have the right to be silly, foolish, and wrong but that is not where this appears to be going.

    I read a biography on Roger Williams last year because you recommended it and I am glad I did. I think Williams is an unsung hero and that we, as a nation, owe a lot to him. You will remember that Williams believed that the state should enforce the “right hand” table of the Mosaic Law (man’s responsibility to man) but not the “left had” side of the Law (man’s responsibility to God). So he believed that the State has the responsibility to enforce biblical prohibitions against adultery (this would include gay sex). Have you now moved away from Roger Williams’ position and consider him to be just another Puritan? This really confuses me.

    I hope this contributes to your discussion.

    Glenn

    Like

  7. lydiasellerofpurple's avatar lydiasellerofpurple said, on March 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Glen, I would give Roger Williams a break. What he did in his day and time was pretty big and he paid a high price to dare do it. When you say he believed Government should enforce “right hand” of the law, what do you think he meant. Surely you don’t think he meant stoning, burning, etc? Have you read the “Bloudy Tenant”?

    Remember, we are talking about a man who lived with pagan Indians for a while who kept him alive when he was banished.

    The subject of homosexuality and the state wears me out. I do not believe homosexuality was God’s intention for humans. That said, I hardly see how a free state can regulate it. However, when ANYONE’S actions inhibit the freedom or rights of another ,then the state has a role. That is where the gay lobby comes in extorting corporations, demanding cities give them special rights for parades. (I saw this happen in St Pete. They got special privileges other groups would not get and caused residents much inconvenience and no sleep for 3 days)

    That is a sort of tyranny in and of itself.

    Like

  8. Glenn's avatar Glenn said, on March 2, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    Hello lydiasellerofpurple,

    Why do I need to give Roger Williams a break? I wasn’t giving him a hard time. Since Paul had written some articles that were very positive toward Williams I was asking if Paul had recently rethought his position on Williams.

    I do have a copy of The Bloody Tenant, is there some section you would like to refer me to? I did a quick internet search to make sure I didn’t misunderstand Williams’ thoughts on the topic of government and if I misunderstood Williams I am not the only one. For example:

    Williams also conceived that the first four commandments, or the first table of the law, addressed one’s obligations to worship God, while the last six commandments, the second table, addressed one’s civil obligations. The American Protestant concept of separation of church and state was largely built on this distinction. Thus state law could properly address moral issues such as adultery, stealing, and murder because these were in the second table of the law.

    However, Puritan era “first table” laws against blasphemy, idolatry, and even Sunday laws fell into disfavor, not merely because of secular trends, but because in the Protestant conception, these obligations pertained not to the state but to God alone.

    I don’t know what penalties Williams would have thought appropriate for violations of the second table of the law. Does it matter?

    Glenn

    Like

  9. Lydia's avatar Lydia said, on March 2, 2014 at 7:53 PM

    “God didn’t “intend” homosexuality. Hmm. I’m not sure I understand that comment. What is your frame of reference for God’s “intentions”? ”

    He formed penises and vaginas? Then brought them together as a one flesh union to multiply? Was than an intention for the sexes?

    I am not saying humans cannot do what they want. They can. Free will/choice. I was simply referring to what God formed. Are you content to say that God is pleased with homosexuality?

    I do not think we should outlaw it, either. Nor do I think we should outlaw same sex civil marriage. Nor do I think we should force people in private business to accept it. Let them lose the profits if they so desire.

    Like

  10. Lydia's avatar Lydia said, on March 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM

    Glen, I was thinking more toward Williams’ welcoming Quakers, agnostics and other “heretics” to Providence settlement. He was sort of redefning the second table.

    Like


Leave a reply to lydiasellerofpurple Cancel reply