Fighting for your right to free speech does not weaken the system in your favor. No, it actually strengthens the system by giving validity to the logic of the system itself.
Great post Kruptos. The question of whether institutions can, in practice, be neutral seems to be one of the primary divisions among “conservatives” or non-progressives today.
Thanks. Yes it is one of those dividing lines. I am in the camp that argues they work for the system, or at least are a part of the system for both good and bad. They are not merely empty vessels to be wielded as we see fit.
For a look into the history of the undermining of Christianity of the West, albeit a bit conspiratorial at the start for my taste, one can find Libido Dominandi over on archive.org
Second half or so covers propaganda, NGO predecessors, the Civil Rights movement, and the sexual revolution.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
The passage lays out in very simple terms the role of the king, the state, and why it should be honored. The king is God's representative, in a sense is the symbol of divine judgement among other things. The role of the crown is to enforce law, which is always an expression of morality. Even pagan kings are on their thrones because God has ordained it and thus they are responsible to his judgement. But this passage establishes the idea that it is the role of the king to enforce the limits God has placed upon human choice going back to the Garden of Eden. One of the key roles of governance is the establishment and enforcement of morality for the good of society. What do you think the "punishment of the wrongdoer" means? Liberalism would like to exempt certain facets of morality, like speech, from law.
I will try to answer this without diving into the murky waters of Reformed/Calvinist theology. Let's just say that without salvation in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit, your ability to exercise truly free choice is not a thing. Your ability to do good comes not from the law itself, but from the influence of the Spirit in your life. Hence the fruit of the Spirit.
At the same time it is the role of the king, the state, as ordained by God, to punish wrongdoers. That means that it is the role of the king to limit speech, that is, speech as wrongdoing. The church and the crown work together to both establish and enforce those boundaries, just as the crown punishes the murder. Will this role of setting limits be abused in the same way the the liberal principle of free speech is abused? Of course. But the principle of setting limits on behavior is one established in the Garden of Eden by God himself with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. One of the fundamental ideas regarding sin is the transgressing of boundaries. In that case, it was a desire to know things which should not be known. One of the organizing principles of liberalism is that there should be no barriers to knowledge. At its most basic, liberalism is fundamentally at odds with divine law. I am not sure if there is any biblical injunction which encourages more liberalization of speech. In fact, it specifically tells us in Proverbs 10:19 "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent." RSV Scripture preaches everywhere restrained and wise speech.
The first amendment requires a people of restrained speech.
You cannot have a society that is free from religion in the public realm. Every society has at its core a great religious principle. If it is not Christianity, it will be something else. The idea of a secular state is a fiction. Presently the great religious impulse of our age is that of human progress. As Christianity was pushed aside after its disestablishment, the new metaphysical reality that came to replace it was the state. There is always a god at the core of society.
I get what you are saying. I just disagree. Unfortunately your knowledge of theology and biblical teaching is lacking and your thinking is mixed up jumble of ideas that have not been worked through either philosophically or theologically. Let’s just leave this here and agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote.
Because, even though there is a divinely appointed role for the king in a sinful world, ultimately the problem could not be solved by force. It had to dealt with through sacrifice. There are lot of things which have to be held in tension. But one of the first things we must see is that mankind does not exercise free choice. His choices are stained by sin.
Is murder immoral and does the state enforce this notion?
Just so with everything else - law is morality and the moral framework of liberalism is inherently destructive for humans. A Christian society will necessarily have Christian laws and this is perfectly in accord with normal history. The Enlightenment is a curious thing because it welds a sort of Christian universalism (all are welcome to the Body of Christ provided they die to the old man) with technique and belief in the supremacy and constant improvement of man's reasoning capacity.
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I see no issue with the state and Church being united. Christ, of course, accepts all who repent. And we put murderers to death because it is healthier for the world and humanity. The Church's position on the death penalty is that it is a last resort and necessary that it not stand in the way of other's salvation or cut short their time for repentence and it is lamented because that person no longer has a chance to repent. Moreover, if we simply consent or encourage sin we are partaking of that sin. Basic Christian teaching would state you don't do that. Ergo, if you agitate for a morality which is "do what though will be the whole of the law" you are helping people along the road to hell.
Yours is the ahistorical and unusual take which is straight from Enlightenment thinking, which we know because it's all about individualism which is bizarre.l and ultimately untrue in that ignore what humans are and how we interact and what we aim to be. You are arguing that Christian morality shouldn't be instantiated- whose then, and why is it better?
Great post Kruptos. The question of whether institutions can, in practice, be neutral seems to be one of the primary divisions among “conservatives” or non-progressives today.
Thanks. Yes it is one of those dividing lines. I am in the camp that argues they work for the system, or at least are a part of the system for both good and bad. They are not merely empty vessels to be wielded as we see fit.
For a look into the history of the undermining of Christianity of the West, albeit a bit conspiratorial at the start for my taste, one can find Libido Dominandi over on archive.org
Second half or so covers propaganda, NGO predecessors, the Civil Rights movement, and the sexual revolution.
Romans 13:1-5
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
The passage lays out in very simple terms the role of the king, the state, and why it should be honored. The king is God's representative, in a sense is the symbol of divine judgement among other things. The role of the crown is to enforce law, which is always an expression of morality. Even pagan kings are on their thrones because God has ordained it and thus they are responsible to his judgement. But this passage establishes the idea that it is the role of the king to enforce the limits God has placed upon human choice going back to the Garden of Eden. One of the key roles of governance is the establishment and enforcement of morality for the good of society. What do you think the "punishment of the wrongdoer" means? Liberalism would like to exempt certain facets of morality, like speech, from law.
This is the second time you have done name calling so I can only assume you are not a serious person.
By your fruits ye shall know them.
Yours seem filled with hate, and I will pray for you, Mr. Raven.
I will try to answer this without diving into the murky waters of Reformed/Calvinist theology. Let's just say that without salvation in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit, your ability to exercise truly free choice is not a thing. Your ability to do good comes not from the law itself, but from the influence of the Spirit in your life. Hence the fruit of the Spirit.
At the same time it is the role of the king, the state, as ordained by God, to punish wrongdoers. That means that it is the role of the king to limit speech, that is, speech as wrongdoing. The church and the crown work together to both establish and enforce those boundaries, just as the crown punishes the murder. Will this role of setting limits be abused in the same way the the liberal principle of free speech is abused? Of course. But the principle of setting limits on behavior is one established in the Garden of Eden by God himself with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. One of the fundamental ideas regarding sin is the transgressing of boundaries. In that case, it was a desire to know things which should not be known. One of the organizing principles of liberalism is that there should be no barriers to knowledge. At its most basic, liberalism is fundamentally at odds with divine law. I am not sure if there is any biblical injunction which encourages more liberalization of speech. In fact, it specifically tells us in Proverbs 10:19 "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent." RSV Scripture preaches everywhere restrained and wise speech.
The first amendment requires a people of restrained speech.
Without faith works are nothing.
You cannot have a society that is free from religion in the public realm. Every society has at its core a great religious principle. If it is not Christianity, it will be something else. The idea of a secular state is a fiction. Presently the great religious impulse of our age is that of human progress. As Christianity was pushed aside after its disestablishment, the new metaphysical reality that came to replace it was the state. There is always a god at the core of society.
I get what you are saying. I just disagree. Unfortunately your knowledge of theology and biblical teaching is lacking and your thinking is mixed up jumble of ideas that have not been worked through either philosophically or theologically. Let’s just leave this here and agree to disagree. I stand by what I wrote.
Because, even though there is a divinely appointed role for the king in a sinful world, ultimately the problem could not be solved by force. It had to dealt with through sacrifice. There are lot of things which have to be held in tension. But one of the first things we must see is that mankind does not exercise free choice. His choices are stained by sin.
That is a big assumption
Is murder immoral and does the state enforce this notion?
Just so with everything else - law is morality and the moral framework of liberalism is inherently destructive for humans. A Christian society will necessarily have Christian laws and this is perfectly in accord with normal history. The Enlightenment is a curious thing because it welds a sort of Christian universalism (all are welcome to the Body of Christ provided they die to the old man) with technique and belief in the supremacy and constant improvement of man's reasoning capacity.
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I see no issue with the state and Church being united. Christ, of course, accepts all who repent. And we put murderers to death because it is healthier for the world and humanity. The Church's position on the death penalty is that it is a last resort and necessary that it not stand in the way of other's salvation or cut short their time for repentence and it is lamented because that person no longer has a chance to repent. Moreover, if we simply consent or encourage sin we are partaking of that sin. Basic Christian teaching would state you don't do that. Ergo, if you agitate for a morality which is "do what though will be the whole of the law" you are helping people along the road to hell.
Yours is the ahistorical and unusual take which is straight from Enlightenment thinking, which we know because it's all about individualism which is bizarre.l and ultimately untrue in that ignore what humans are and how we interact and what we aim to be. You are arguing that Christian morality shouldn't be instantiated- whose then, and why is it better?