Social Justice Jesus

[Drummer4Christ]

I would deny that Western countries are actually that democratic. "Democracy" in the West is very much: which group of elites do you want to rule over you? (And probably ignore the people on various issues.)

Does society have the right to set taxes and implement social programs? Sure.

But in the West this stuff isn't really under the control of the people. Actually, I doubt the left wing would want real democracy. Too many people could have the "wrong" values for them.

And we know that there are dangers with this type of thing. If the state provides assistance to teen girls who get themselves knocked up, it can easily become a "reward" for irresponsible behaviour.

And then you are actually helping to CREATE a social problem. And quite possibly you are stealing off of more responsible people (tax) who have a hard enough time paying for their own family.[/FONT]

Exactly. The USA is NOT a democracy. It is a Constitutional Rebuplic. Simply put, "democracy" is majority rule. "Democracy" is when two wolves and a lamb decide what to eat for supper. "Democracy" is when Pontious Pilate asked the crowd what to do with Jesus.

 

[Zinc]

"Democracy" is when two wolves and a lamb decide what to eat for supper.

That is a rather warped view of democracy I would say. It does contain a certain truth: the majority could vote to do bad things. But then any system can do bad things. How about "democracy" is where people get together and organize the fair running of society?

If the people have control over their own society, then they can possibly do bad things. But if you have elites in control of society they can also possibly do bad things.

Some may appeal to "constitutional principles" that would protect against "democractic excesses". But such a system can itself easily become a tool of oppression. And they only provide limited protection against a tyranny of an elite minority.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Still waiting for answers to these questions.

Where in Scripture does Jesus make the distinction between sacrifice to lift up God vs sacrifice to lift up men?

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate giving back to Caesar as giving back to God?

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate the works of men with providence from God?

---
- New International Version unless noted otherwise

 

[Drew]

Where in Scripture does Jesus equate giving back to Caesar as giving back to God?

Are you looking for a "verse"?

If so, I suggest that this is not the only mode by which the scriptures communicate truth to us.

Jesus announced that the kingdom of God was good news for the poor. It stretches credulitly to imagine that Jesus does not want the church to pursue the implementation of a societal model where the "rich" act collaboratively to assist the poor.

And this is precisely one of the major reasons for taxation. Even though people cannot, or will not, accept this, it is a manifest and undeniable fact taxation is essentially voluntary - you vote to be taxed and you could vote to not be taxed.

Beside the "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God" most certainly does not support the notion that we should only assist the poor through the church, and not through the instrumentality of the state.

 

[Drew]

How about "democracy" is where people get together and organize the fair running of society?

Exactly. Christians should be active in attempting to shape our society, through the means of democracy, so that it (and its institutions) embody "kingdom of God" principles. And one of these is, of course, material support to the poor.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Are you looking for a "verse"?

If so, I suggest that this is not the only mode by which the scriptures communicate truth to us.

Except when it comes to comparing opposing interpretations to murder & adultery.

Jesus announced that the kingdom of God was good news for the poor. It stretches credulitly to imagine that Jesus does not want the church to pursue the implementation of a societal model where the "rich" act collaboratively to assist the poor.

As pointed out in the OP, Jesus did not act "collaboratively" with anyone, let alone the "rich", when He MULTIPLIED the loaves & fishes to feed the multitudes. Jesus didn't "spread the wealth" He generated it. Not only that, you betray your own argument of no "one verse" concerning "good news to the poor":

Jesus directly quotes Isaiah 61:1 to the disciples of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:5 & Luke 7:22, as well as to the Jews at the Synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:18 concerning His Messiah-ship & divinity respectively. He did not make a vague reference to Scripture to substantiate His claim.

And this is precisely one of the major reasons for taxation. Even though people cannot, or will not, accept this, it is a manifest and undeniable fact taxation is essentially voluntary - you vote to be taxed and you could vote to not be taxed.
Beside the "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God" most certainly does not support the notion that we should only assist the poor through the church, and not through the instrumentality of the state.

Verbose pontifications are not substitutes for the word of God.

Please provide any collection of Scripture (be it one verse/chapter, multiple verses/chapters ect) that outline your assertion that Jesus equates giving to Caesar as giving to God, considering this goes to the heart of your argument that such a concept is a specific aspect of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Drew]

As pointed out in the OP, Jesus did not act "collaboratively" with anyone, let alone the "rich", when He MULTIPLIED the loaves & fishes to feed the multitudes.

Not the point. Jesus initiated a kingdom. And, as I have pointed out (as if it really needs to be said), it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Jesus to have wanted His followers to not take those kingdom principles seriously enough in order to try and shape the entire society with them.

Does it makes sense for Jesus to instruct you to care for the poor and yet not advocate for implementation that same principle in the basic infrastructure that governs the broader society?

 

[Drew]

Not only that, you betray your own argument of no "one verse" concerning "good news to the poor":

Jesus directly quotes Isaiah 61:1 to the disciples of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:5 & Luke 7:22, as well as to the Jews at the Synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:18 concerning His Messiah-ship & divinity respectively. He did not make a vague reference to Scripture to substantiate His claim.

I do not know how this undermines my point. No one is disputing that Jesus made statements about His Messiahship and divinity.

But there is no doubt - Jesus announced a kingdom. And despite the arbitrary, unBiblical efforts to suggest that such a kingdom is restricted to a mysterious "inner world", it is very much a kingdom in the usual sense - a way of running the world and everything in it.

Jesus said this:

THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,

Now to address another widespread error - the gospel is not a message about "how you can go to heaven when you die", it is the message that Jesus is King of the world. I can make all the relevant arguments if you like.

He also said this:

When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Now if there is one text that people do the two-step around, it is this one. The most common way to evade the implication is to say something like this: "This rich young ruler had a particular problem with greed, and Jesus is addressing that problem - he is not implying that we should all give self-sacrifically to the poor".

No. Jesus, in this teaching, and in many others clearly addresses the moral imperative to help the poor (how can you deny this?).

Now most Christians do not deny this. But many do not like the idea that we should take the principle so seriously that we actually try to use it to mould the way the world is actually run.

Well, I disagree. It stretches credulity to imagine that Jesus wants us to be personally generous, but to not seek, through democratic means of course, to invite other members of society to join us in pursuing society-wide generosity in the form of taxation that moves money from the wealthy to the needy.

 

[Drew]

Verbose pontifications are not substitutes for the word of God.

I made a clear argument about the nature of taxation. You can call it "verbose pontification" if you like, but I suggest the reader will see your response as an evasion of the argument I have provided. Taxation is voluntary in the sense that is important for the purposes of this issue.

Please provide any collection of Scripture (be it one verse/chapter, multiple verses/chapters ect) that outline your assertion that Jesus equates giving to Caesar as giving to God, considering this goes to the heart of your argument that such a concept is a specific aspect of the Kingdom of God.

I have already done so, repeatedly.

I suggest you are "rigging the game" here - insisting that I provide a specific kind of Biblical evidence to support my position when there is other kinds of evidence already on offer.

To repeat:

1. Jesus clearly asserted that his disciples should give to the poor;

2. Jesus announced that a new kingdom had been initiated. Now the concept of "kingdom" includes the organs of government within its embrace. How can Jesis possibly be suggesting that this new kingdom has nothing to say about how the society is actually governed?

3. Putting 1 and 2 together, it is clear that Jesus wants us to seek to reshape our world so that all His kingdom principles - including generosity to the poor - are implemented in all institutions of this world.

There is no "verse" or "collection of verses" where Jesus says "Oh, by the way, you should seek to transform the way your society is run so that the wealthy members of the society collectively seek to support the poorer ones".

Do you really need such a direct statement? You should not. If Jesus is Lord, He is Lord of all. And that includes the way society operates. Are you suggesting that Jesus' kingdom of God principles should not be applied in the context of the organ of government?

 

[jasoncran]

yet somehow with drew.

a christian can vote for any sinner in office but cant run as he may have to send troops to war..(the commander and chief is part of the president's job)

nor could he call in the guard to restor law and order as that is each and every governors job. as a politician at any level having order is most important thing. why do you think govt christie and now the governors of missipi and louisana declare their states in a state of emergency? its not symbolic at all when they do that as it:

allows the federal goverment to send fema and money
calls up the national guard
sets up curfews

in katrina the transmission line repair crews were often shot at by the local gangster the multi-state guard shot them back and arrested wherever and whenever they could and the leos took them to jail.

men died in those frays, drew. therefore by your logic no christian can ever be a politician as each of these orders were given by men and women who are appointed by the state and or president to do such things. so christ isnt in charge of them i guess as we cede that to the sinners. it makes no sense to say that.

while its true that not all the time people riot here but they do. hurricane andrew they did loot. katrina there was forced and i mean forced from homes evacuations. people didnt want to leave and the leos and guard made them leave.

sometime law enforcement means force must be used and deadly force if need be is used as a last resort.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Not the point. Jesus initiated a kingdom. And, as I have pointed out (as if it really needs to be said), it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Jesus to have wanted His followers to not take those kingdom principles seriously enough in order to try and shape the entire society with them.

Does it makes sense for Jesus to instruct you to care for the poor and yet not advocate for implementation that same principle in the basic infrastructure that governs the broader society?

Jesus also instructed against divorce & remarriage. Are you implying that the State should implement policies against such behavior? Should the State ban abortion & sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman?

Or are abortion, premarital/homosexual relations outside of the Kingdom of God that governs broader society?

 

[elijah23]

I don't know what you mean by "social" justice, but Jesus did command us to be just:

But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Luke 11:42 RSV

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I made a clear argument about the nature of taxation. You can call it "verbose pontification" if you like, but I suggest the reader will see your response as an evasion of the argument I have provided. Taxation is voluntary in the sense that is important for the purposes of this issue.

Two wolves and Lamb are hungry, so they all take a vote to decide what to eat:

Wolf one votes to eat the lamb, wolf two also votes to eat the lamb. The lamb votes to eat grass. Did the lamb "voluntarily" choose to be eaten simply because it cast a vote?

I have already done so, repeatedly.

I suggest you are "rigging the game" here - insisting that I provide a specific kind of Biblical evidence to support my position when there is other kinds of evidence already on offer.

I have "rigged" nothing. You've made specific assertions, it is not unreasonable to request specific Scripture when claiming a specific concept is Biblical.

1. Jesus clearly asserted that his disciples should give to the poor

No one has denied this fact. However, giving to those less fortunate is an obligation of all believers, not just "the rich" as demonstrated by the poor widow.

2. Jesus announced that a new kingdom had been initiated. Now the concept of "kingdom" includes the organs of government within its embrace. How can Jesis possibly be suggesting that this new kingdom has nothing to say about how the society is actually governed?

Are you implying that any faith that does not involve the recognition of Jesus as the ruler of the "kingdom" be outlawed? That speech should be limited so the Lord's name is not taken in vain?

3. Putting 1 and 2 together, it is clear that Jesus wants us to seek to reshape our world so that all His kingdom principles - including generosity to the poor - are implemented in all institutions of this world.

What constitutes "rich" & "poor" and who determines what constitutes "rich" & "poor"?

There is no "verse" or "collection of verses" where Jesus says "Oh, by the way, you should seek to transform the way your society is run so that the wealthy members of the society collectively seek to support the poorer ones".

So, wealth redistribution is a specific Biblical concept that cannot be substantiated with specific Scripture?

Do you really need such a direct statement? You should not. If Jesus is Lord, He is Lord of all. And that includes the way society operates. Are you suggesting that Jesus' kingdom of God principles should not be applied in the context of the organ of government?

The irony is that there is such a direct statement by Jesus:

Matthew 17:20
Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.

 

[Zinc]

Not the point. Jesus initiated a kingdom. And, as I have pointed out (as if it really needs to be said), it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Jesus to have wanted His followers to not take those kingdom principles seriously enough in order to try and shape the entire society with them.

Does it makes sense for Jesus to instruct you to care for the poor and yet not advocate for implementation that same principle in the basic infrastructure that governs the broader society?

As I have said before:

Where does Jesus set out his schemes for social reform?

Where does he say people should organize to achieve such and such results in society?

Where does he say how society should be governed?

As far as I know, the teaching of Jesus we are given is more along the lines of personal ethics. I guess "personal ethics" if followed could play out to result in social reform, but it's far from clear (to me at least) that Jesus had such a vision.


You are probably aware that one strand of thought in the study of the "historical Jesus" is that he was an "apocalyptic prophet". As a fan of NT Wright, you reject that picture. But if it's correct, then the idea of the "kingdom" that Jesus had would not fit with him being interested in social reform.

 

[Drew]

Jesus also instructed against divorce & remarriage. Are you implying that the State should implement policies against such behavior?

My basic answer is "yes", but with some qualifications.

Re the divorce and remarriage thing: I have read arguments (and I do not want to get onto a tangent about this) that we have misunderstood Jesus' teaching on this subject and / or that this teaching, in particular, may have been "context-specific". I am going to get into this thorny issue.

The important point is this: To the extent that we are confident that Jesus has advocated a "timeless truth" - as I am personally confident in respect to the matter of the "kingdom" principle of societal-level care for the poor - we (Christians) should indeed advocate for the enshrinement of such principles in law.

Should the State ban abortion & sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman?

Maybe. These issues are not, I suggest, exactly analogous to the particular issue we are talking about for reasons I will have to get back to you on.

 

[jasoncran]

sigh, a theocratic state where none may practice any other faith is the only kingdom that God would allow. God didnt say you may serve other gods in isreal. NO! he said if you do , you die. where is the idea of freedom of religion in the bible? theres none! serve God and or die in the ot. and repent in the nt(same theme just delayed justice if no repentance) of that sin and the penalty was paid on the cross.

 

[Drew]

As I have said before:

Where does Jesus set out his schemes for social reform?

Where does he say people should organize to achieve such and such results in society?

Where does he say how society should be governed?

I have already fully addressed these questions. Several times in fact. You may not like my answers, but they are there and they clearly address your questions.

I will raise this possiblity: You are either unable, or unwilling, to absorb answers to this question that are not "Sunday School" answers - answers that appeal to a "verse", as it were.

Things are not always this simple. The argument I have presented is one based on a reasonable inference from the broad content of Jesus' teachings.

As far as I know, the teaching of Jesus we are given is more along the lines of personal ethics.

I doubt it, and I politely suggest that your thinking about this is coloured by your "post-enlightenment" culture (I am in the same culture, but would like to think I am able to step back from it).

Jesus announced a kingdom, as I have pointed out. To the first-century reader, this would mean that Jesus is suggesting that His teachings are not simply "personal" in their application, but are to be understood as appropriate for application in the organs of government (as well).

You are probably aware that one strand of thought in the study of the "historical Jesus" is that he was an "apocalyptic prophet". As a fan of NT Wright, you reject that picture. But if it's correct, then the idea of the "kingdom" that Jesus had would not fit with him being interested in social reform.

You have provided this improper framing before (or at least some poster has). I do accept that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but I also think He was more than that as well.

Let's be clear: To say that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet does not necessarily mean that He thought the world was going to end shortly. NT Wright argues that Jesus was indeed an apocalyptic prophet in the sense that Jesus saw the "age of Israel" coming to an end, not that the world was coming to an end. The apocalypse was "socio-political", not "cosmic", in nature.

But, if Jesus thought the world was indeed coming to an end (I do not believe He thought this way), then it would make no sense for Him to announce the kind of kingdom I have been talking about. I assume this is your basic point.

 

[Drew]

sigh, a theocratic state where none may practice any other faith is the only kingdom that God would allow.

I suggest you will not be able to support this position Biblically.

God didnt say you may serve other gods in isreal. NO! he said if you do , you die. where is the idea of freedom of religion in the bible?

You are talking "apples and oranges". The kingdom Jesus initiated brings to an end the kingdom where people are killed for worshipping other gods.

 

[Zinc]

I have already fully addressed these questions. Several times in fact. You may not like my answers, but they are there and they clearly address your questions.

I will raise this possiblity: You are either unable, or unwilling, to absorb answers to this question that are not "Sunday School" answers - answers that appeal to a "verse", as it were.

Things are not always this simple. The argument I have presented is one based on a reasonable inference from the broad content of Jesus' teachings.

Firstly, I think it's fair enough to ask if you have anything where Jesus clearly teaches such and such. If you did, obviously, it would help your case. From your response, I guess you accept that you don't have that kind of evidence. You just have what you claim is a, "reasonable inference".

But that "inference" seems to depend on your own ideas about "kingdom" in the NT. (Which could be wrong.)

So your claims don't appear to have the strongest foundation.

Jesus announced a kingdom, as I have pointed out. To the first-century reader, this would mean that Jesus is suggesting that His teachings are not simply "personal" in their application, but are to be understood as appropriate for application in the organs of government (as well).

Anyone can make assertions about the "first-century reader". Evidence that your own idea of "kingdom" is correct? Evidence for how "first century readers" would have taken it?

You have provided this improper framing before (or at least some poster has). I do accept that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but I also think He was more than that as well.

Let's be clear: To say that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet does not necessarily mean that He thought the world was going to end shortly.

OK, you may not like my term here, but when I say "apocalyptic prophet" I mean along the lines of Schweitzer.

But, if Jesus thought the world was indeed coming to an end (I do not believe He thought this way), then it would make no sense for Him to announce the kind of kingdom I have been talking about. I assume this is your basic point.

If he expected the imminent "end of normal history", then it looks unlikely that he would be that worried about social reform.

 

[jasoncran]

I suggest you will not be able to support this position Biblically.


You are talking "apples and oranges". The kingdom Jesus initiated brings to an end the kingdom where people are killed for worshipping other gods.

so how then do intend to stop adultery? sodomy?
all sins? fines? imprisoment.

really, ah yes the age of grace, who says that they cant repent before execution?

so sin all you want is ok in god eyes. so when christ comes he isnt going to kill those that reject him? drew if his kingdom is now what of this verse" he shall reign with an iron fist.

where is the first commandment nullified?

the punishment for the sinner when he repents was paid on the cross.

romans 1

is blessed for ever. Amen.

<sup id="en-KJV-27957" class="versenum">26</sup>For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
<sup id="en-KJV-27958" class="versenum">27</sup>And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
<sup id="en-KJV-27959" class="versenum">28</sup>And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
<sup id="en-KJV-27960" class="versenum">29</sup>Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
<sup id="en-KJV-27961" class="versenum">30</sup>Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
<sup id="en-KJV-27962" class="versenum">31</sup>Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: <sup id="en-KJV-27963" class="versenum">32</sup>Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God says that they do them are Worhy of death. hmm so God said no i changed my mind on sin after the cross. being holy is less important?


i think he said this to show that when we forgiven the seriousness of the crimes. i am not for this level of laws you suggest as it wont work.

its been tried in america. my state has this as a law!

A Florida lawmaker is pushing to repeal a state law that makes it illegal to cohabitate with someone who is not their spouse, and makes it a crime punishable by a $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail.
According to 2010 U.S. Census figures, at least 544,907 Floridians reported being an "unmarried partner" -- meaning they live in an intimate relationship with someone they are not married to, and thus are in defiance of Florida statute 798.02.
"If any man or woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together ... they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree," the law states

from cnn.com

so please drew all you ideas have been done in america long before your born. the american these days run to sin. they wont vote for laws as you say when we always have had them.

in the past adultery was illegal, sodomy, and also abortion, and in early american history this went on

The Church of England’s establishment attained its greatest strength in Virginia, where religious dissenters comprised only small minorities until the 1750s. But the dispersed pattern of settlement in colonial Virginia, the chronic shortage of clergy (due to skimpy salaries), and the power of local Anglican vestries ruled by prominent laymen weakened the Church of England’s influence in that colony. Even so, colony laws obliged all Virginians to attend Anglican public worship and taxed dissenters to pay for the support of the Anglican clergy; after 1750, as Baptist ranks swelled in that colony, outspoken preachers met with sporadic abuse from angry mobs and fines and imprisonment from outraged local magistrates.

from here.

Church and State in British North America, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

so why would the american public knowing this as its taught in all american history classes nation wide want to repeat this when it kinda is failing?

some of the blame is to the american church as she failed to be the light she would be so that would have to change. which is better? to preach the gospel or pass laws bassed on the torah and or modify the punishements?

evangelising with the laws as you say hasnt worked and wont. take not of history given. sure we should support laws such as above if the society would want them. but in reality many dont so its time to go the old faith pauline style of winning souls. works much better imho.


we maynot win the majority to do what you say drew the west has moved beyond christianity and it times that we adjust.laws that make things illegal wont save them only serve to condemn the sinner.

abortion if illegal wont stop, just goes underground. i submit the argument of the drug wars. we all know that its illegal to use and sell drugs and yet its big business! no i am not for legaliation of either but we need to attack the root. the laws dont save! preach the gospel.

christ came to save souls not nations.