Comments on: A Kingdom Not of This World http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/ The Reign of Christ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:58:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2466 D Hart Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:52:25 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2466 Not so fast, Rusty. Just because the king is a member of the church doesn't give the church over the entire kingdom. If the king needed to be disciplined, and the church disciplined the king by excommunicating him, would that mean the church just excommunicated the kingdom? The church does have authority over Christian politicians on things that are Christian, not over things that are political. A Christian poliitican can decide not to submit to the church's authority. At which point, he's still a politician but not a Christian. Not so fast, Rusty. Just because the king is a member of the church doesn’t give the church over the entire kingdom. If the king needed to be disciplined, and the church disciplined the king by excommunicating him, would that mean the church just excommunicated the kingdom?

The church does have authority over Christian politicians on things that are Christian, not over things that are political. A Christian poliitican can decide not to submit to the church’s authority. At which point, he’s still a politician but not a Christian.

]]> By: Rusty O. http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2432 Rusty O. Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:45:24 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2432 First, I think the question of whether or not a king is accountable to any synod needs to be asked, since that is not assumed on this blog. But if your assumption is that a Christian king is answerable to a synod, then the synod (whoever it is) has just trumped the authority of the state and made it a servant to the King Eternal (if it exists in some capacity after this, then very well). This is not an argument that the church needs to make up her mind about how to build roads and take out the garbage. It is an argument that the church needs a voice regarding issues of social justice and mercy, and furthermore, that her voice, if it is only equal to the king's, will certainly be quelled by the one party that is allowed to kill people. Catholicity would soon become a pragmatic need with the assumption that the king is accountable to the church in some way, so if your point is that this wouldn't work now, you're probably right. Rusty First, I think the question of whether or not a king is accountable to any synod needs to be asked, since that is not assumed on this blog. But if your assumption is that a Christian king is answerable to a synod, then the synod (whoever it is) has just trumped the authority of the state and made it a servant to the King Eternal (if it exists in some capacity after this, then very well).

This is not an argument that the church needs to make up her mind about how to build roads and take out the garbage. It is an argument that the church needs a voice regarding issues of social justice and mercy, and furthermore, that her voice, if it is only equal to the king’s, will certainly be quelled by the one party that is allowed to kill people.

Catholicity would soon become a pragmatic need with the assumption that the king is accountable to the church in some way, so if your point is that this wouldn’t work now, you’re probably right.

Rusty

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2431 MarkPele Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:10:02 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2431 So, what synod is the king answerable to in a one-kingdom system? So, what synod is the king answerable to in a one-kingdom system?

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2429 W.H. Chellis Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:20:12 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2429 The Romans 13 passage has been preached but the article has yet to be written. You have rightly guessed that it is coming in context of the two kingdom discussion. The Romans 13 passage has been preached but the article has yet to be written. You have rightly guessed that it is coming in context of the two kingdom discussion.

]]> By: Rusty O. http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2428 Rusty O. Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:23:52 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2428 I don't see three kingdoms, just one, the church, but I'd like to suggest that it would help Mark's case to see Gen. 9 in a patriarchal light vs. a state light. There was no state to wield the sword for Noah. Noah and Pilate are not seen clearly as parallels, in my mind. Additionally, I think we need help with Mr. Chellis's view of Romans 13. It can't be as simple as some sort of blessing for the Roman Empire's existence and work. After all, it was this same sword, apparently christened by Paul, which lopped his head off a few years later. N.T. Wright has been helpful here. I don’t see three kingdoms, just one, the church, but I’d like to suggest that it would help Mark’s case to see Gen. 9 in a patriarchal light vs. a state light. There was no state to wield the sword for Noah. Noah and Pilate are not seen clearly as parallels, in my mind.

Additionally, I think we need help with Mr. Chellis’s view of Romans 13. It can’t be as simple as some sort of blessing for the Roman Empire’s existence and work. After all, it was this same sword, apparently christened by Paul, which lopped his head off a few years later. N.T. Wright has been helpful here.

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2418 MarkPele Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:06:55 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2418 I'll re-make my original claim of long ago that says that there are three "kingdoms", and I'll use this post as a case-in-point that both the church and state like to squash the larger sphere of the family. I’ll re-make my original claim of long ago that says that there are three “kingdoms”, and I’ll use this post as a case-in-point that both the church and state like to squash the larger sphere of the family.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2413 W.H. Chellis Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:56:48 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2413 Josh, yes, I agree with you. The failure to legally "kiss the Son" has created an unfortunate ambiguity. Although there are two kingdoms (with very different administrations) there is but one King. Josh, yes, I agree with you. The failure to legally “kiss the Son” has created an unfortunate ambiguity. Although there are two kingdoms (with very different administrations) there is but one King.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2412 W.H. Chellis Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:55:25 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2412 Mr. Glaser, thank you for your comment. I agree that the concept of "lawful violence" must have its limits. This is an area where Christian ethicists have much work to do. Mr. Glaser, thank you for your comment. I agree that the concept of “lawful violence” must have its limits. This is an area where Christian ethicists have much work to do.

]]> By: Josh M. http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2410 Josh M. Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:47:02 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2410 The Constitution only grants institutional separation of church and state to the authority it constructs, namely the Federal government. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, states themselves were free to declare institutional alliances of church and state. This was the original "American religious settlement." But in the post-1865 era, the Federal government dictates its secular order to the states. Unfortunately the Constitution, by not acknowledging explicitly the sovereignty of Christ, can easily be interpreted in a fully secular framework (supposedly godless). Thus we get a weird kind of polytheism as the state religion. With no particular god declared, unless "we the people" counts as that, this is the end result of the 1st amendment in its Constitutional context. The preamble to the Ten Commandments, unlike the preamble to the Constitution, will provide a far better model for future writers of constitutions. The Constitution only grants institutional separation of church and state to the authority it constructs, namely the Federal government. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, states themselves were free to declare institutional alliances of church and state. This was the original “American religious settlement.”

But in the post-1865 era, the Federal government dictates its secular order to the states. Unfortunately the Constitution, by not acknowledging explicitly the sovereignty of Christ, can easily be interpreted in a fully secular framework (supposedly godless). Thus we get a weird kind of polytheism as the state religion. With no particular god declared, unless “we the people” counts as that, this is the end result of the 1st amendment in its Constitutional context. The preamble to the Ten Commandments, unlike the preamble to the Constitution, will provide a far better model for future writers of constitutions.

]]> By: Benjamin P. Glaser http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2409 Benjamin P. Glaser Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:19:33 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/11/06/a-kingdom-not-of-this-world/#comment-2409 "civil government must exercise lawful violence in order to prevent unlawful violence" The word that I have underlined is key to truly understanding the complexity of the argument being made on the use of force by the Kingdom of Man. The question then arises what exactly is "lawful violence"? And further how does a church render unto Caesar the right to use this force in a way that not only honors this limit but does so in a lawful manner? I make no claim to know the answer but in a religious environment where straight-out Pacifism is gaining greater traction (which I believe does not honor the decree for lawful violence in an edifying manner) how do we re-institute this two-kingdom claim? “civil government must exercise lawful violence in order to prevent unlawful violence”

The word that I have underlined is key to truly understanding the complexity of the argument being made on the use of force by the Kingdom of Man. The question then arises what exactly is “lawful violence”? And further how does a church render unto Caesar the right to use this force in a way that not only honors this limit but does so in a lawful manner? I make no claim to know the answer but in a religious environment where straight-out Pacifism is gaining greater traction (which I believe does not honor the decree for lawful violence in an edifying manner) how do we re-institute this two-kingdom claim?

]]>