About

I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I came to doubt my Witness beliefs, rejecting many of them, and the doctrinal autho...

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Wordpress?

I think that I'll take this blog down and move my posts over to Wordpress; I'll decide by Friday.

Is Political Neutrality Required of Christians?

Is Political Neutrality Required of Christians?
July 28th, 2018

This is what some groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, teach, and it is at least superficially compelling and heeding it to some degree is not without some practical advantage; but that doesn’t suffice for us to suppose it a requirement for Christians pure and simple. Scripture doesn’t command us to be politically neutral, and there is good reason to think that it permits at least some involvement in the political sphere, contingent on the particular circumstances one finds himself in.

In defense of the supposed prohibition on political involvement it might be pointed out that Christ told his followers to be “no part of the world, even as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:16) Political involvement would seem to be off limits as something paradigmatically worldly, or so it will be argued. However, what must be recognized is that nowhere in Scripture is this made explicit. Further, the suggestion that politics is essentially worldly, which seems to be the motivating belief behind the view of groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, is not justified by merely pointing out the corruptness that infests much of politics; if that were not so, then nearly every human endeavor would have to be counted worldly and so off limits for Christians. Nothing would remain but for us all to be hermits.

More importantly, the Scriptural evidence slants the other way. I'm not referring to the Old Testament at all, which can be considered as much a slip of permission for political involvement as it is a warning against God's people being so involved (of necessity, in case of the OT) in politics. Rather, I have in mind the words of John the Baptist to the soldiers who came to him for instruction, and the similar cases of the what Philip said to the Ethiopian eunuch and what Peter said to Cornelius the Centurion. Rather, I should say, what these men did not say, and what the biblical account does not record any of them doing or having to do. Moreover, the words of Paul show that political power is not per se suspect, since it derives from God, ultimately; this suggests that it is something best exercised by Christians.

John the Baptist
Luke 3:14: "And persons engaged in military service also asked him saying, And we, what should we do? And he said to them, Oppress no one, nor accuse falsely, and be satisfied with your pay."
John the Baptist's was permissive of serving as a solider (and in the previous verse, of being a tax collector, which was not exactly a politically neutral office in those days, provided one discharge that service faithfully), so we see no reason to object to various kinds of political service in his teaching. 

Some suggest that he did, in fact, forbid work as a solider on the basis that he told the soldiers who came to him (likely Jewish auxiliaries) that they should not διασείσητε anyone, where διασείσητε  we are told means "violence." The upshot being that he was indirectly telling them to get another line of work: after all, part of being a soldier is the capacity to do violence. If true, it might incline us to think that other politically involved offices would also be suspect, but that conclusion wouldn't be forced on us. In any event, even that much can't be justified, for that objection blurs the percise meaning of the word in question. It doesn't mean or connote all actions that can be called violent, but specifically oppressive or intimidating actions against those that (the context suggests) are innocent.

A better objection is that John was still under the Mosaic dispensation and that his warfare tolerant position might, as far as we've shown, be inconsistent with the Gospel. So stated, this doesn't so much prove the neutral-cum-pacifist position as it only slightly weakens the position that political involvement and warfare are not per se objectionable from a Christian perspective. And it is not clear that the transition from Moses to Christ does away with John's teaching to the soldiers anymore than it does to his words to the tax collectors, which is surely just if anything is: "Collect no more than you are authorized." (v. 13) Furthermore, it should be conceded that John's words (at least once διασείσητε is properly understood) would be a natural place for Christians to justify involvement in warfare and politics, even if such isn't their actual force. If Luke wished to avoid this implication, he could have not included this story in his gospel. That he did, suggests (but, by itself, isn't conclusive) that he believes the same principle holds for Christians as well.

The Ethiopian Eunuch
Acts 8:27: "And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure."
The entire account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch can be found in Acts 8:26-40. What is most interesting is that he is clearly a government official of some importance, and is converted as such. We are not given any indication that Philip instructed the eunuch to step aside from his position as treasurer, nor any indication that he did so of his own accord (and certainly not because being a high-ranking government official was intrinsically at odds with being a Christian). As the account appears, it is good evidence that a Christian can be a government official or politically involved.

Cornelius the Centurion
Acts 10:1: "At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment."
The entire account of the conversation of Cornelius can be found at Acts 10:1-11:18. What is relevant here is that he converted as an officer of some power in the Roman army; he was not, as far as the account reveals, instructed to step down. Nor do any of those who were already Christian object that a solider was converted, but that a gentile was, in any even those who objected, after being reassured by Peter praised God over the conversion of our Italian friend and what it signified. Cornelius is not mentioned as resigning from his position as a condition of his conversion; perhaps he did later - perhaps Catholic tradition is correct that he accompanied Peter as Peter preached, and that Cornelius eventually became bishop of Skepsis - but even if so, that does not indicate that it was strict necessity for him to do so that he might live faithfully as a Christian.

Paul on the Power of the Sword
Romans 13:1-6: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. 2 Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. 4 For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work."
The import of this passage is that the political authorities derive their power from God. Of course, they can go beyond (or fall short) of their obligations, rights, and authority, but as such their power is constituted by God. How can it as such be bad? Further, we notice that the authority granted by God extends to the power to kill, such as in executions or dare I say, in a just war. This is a good indication that involvement in the political order is not intrinsically impermissible for Christians. (Indeed, why would we want only unbelievers, who are not bound by the righteousness of Christ, to have exclusive control in government and warfare?)

Common Sense and Conclusion
Beyond the scriptural evidence, we can apply common sense to the issue at hand. Concerning warfare, we can legitimately see it as an extension of self-defense; and very few would consider self-defense as immoral; hence it follows that just warfare (warfare that is relevantly like self-defense extended to a national level) is likewise permissible. Further, even groups like Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is permissible to use the courts to defend themselves; but the courts can't be neatly partitioned off from the rest of the political order. If Christians can involve themselves in the courts, why not other aspects of the political order, seeing as these other aspects are intrinsically permissible? At worst, New Testament Scripture is silent; I suggest it gives permission, even if it is not particularly focused with informing us of these matters.

So we can be involved in politics, and even go to war, without doing violence to our separateness from the world. But this isn't to say that there aren't dangers involved in this, or cases where a Christian would have to abstain from politics or going to war. Like all things that are permissible as such, we have to ascertain whether they are permissible to engage in given the particular circumstances we are in. Further, just as it is wrong to dogmatically proscribe political involvement, it is foolish to have our hopes and energies too tied to the going-ons of the political scene. We must remain focused on preaching the gospel, and as in all things, be as cautious as serpents and innocent as doves.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

You've Got No Clue!

You've Got No Clue!
October 1st, 2017
1 John 3:2 - Beloved ones, we are now children of God, but it has not yet been made manifest what we will be. We do know that when he is made manifest we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is. 
It is suggested by some that this shows that Jesus couldn't have been raised up as a man. We know what it is like to be a human being, but we don't know what we shall be like, and we will be like Jesus. Therefore he, and the resurrection body generally, must not be human.

However, this argument - proclaimed by some as 'near irrefutable' - fails to attend to the distinction between the human body we presently have and that which we will receive. What we have now is merely a manifestation of fallen, mortal, weak and corruptible human nature; however, what we shall receive shall be glorified, immortal, power and incorruptible human nature.

While we have some indication as to what this will be like, partly because of what is recorded about what Jesus did after his resurrection, this hardly constitutes our knowing what a glorified human body is like. Thus it still makes sense for us to say 'but it has not yet been made manifest what we will be like.'

Monday, July 16, 2018

New Blog Address, and Only One Blogger Account

The blog address is now witnessseekingorthodoxy.blogspot.com. However, the links between posts still point to the old address; to ensure that the links aren't broken, I mirrored my blog with the old address. I'll get rid of this blog once all the links are updated.

Also, I've switched to the blogger account associated with my new personal / blogging email, not the one associated with my earlier pen name, or my other, work email.

Update: It actually looks like the links still don't work. So I'll be updating them over the next few days.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

'God Subjected All Things to Him'

'God Subjected All Things to Him'
December 12th, 2017 
Revised: July 15th, 2018

I happened to be reading Body, Soul, and Human Life by Joel B. Green in my study of biblical anthropology. In his work, Hebrews 2:5-9 was quoted:
For it is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. But somewhere it is testified in these words:
'What is man, that You are mindful of him, or the son of man, that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor and placed everything under his feet.'
When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
Now, Green has his own purposes in mind in appealing to this passage, but they need not concern us here. What interests me presently is that this seems a good proof of Christ's present humanity and the eternal humanity of his saints, even if not as clear as the resurrection accounts in the Gospel or Acts 2 and 13. How so?

Notice that the promise, which Paul quotes from the Psalm 8:4-6, is given to men. It is not yet fulfilled, but will be ultimately. And Christ is seen as the paradigmatic recipetient or the promise, exalted because he suffered suffering death as the Messiah, and so presently enjoys much glory and power. He sits enthroned at the right hand of God, awaiting the last of his enemies to be made a stool for his feet. (See, for example: Ephesians 1:20-23.) But we, too, are not left out, for we shall reign with him. (See, for example: 1 Corinthians 6:3; Ephesians 2:6.) And in this way shall the promise be fulfilled.

But if it is given to men, doesn't it follow that men must be the ones to receive its fulfillment? It does. Hence, it follows that Christ is and forever shall be a human; and it is this way with us as well. Thus the doctrine of, among others, Witnesses is wrong; the teaching that all or some Christians shall be raised up as non-human angel-like spirit beings doesn't seem supported in Scripture.

Lower Than the Angels for a Little While
An alternative and somewhat popular translation is that Christ was made 'lower than the angels for a little while', which might be said to indicate that he was human only for a short time. However, this doesn't follow. For one thing, this promise was made to men, and hence it follows that all things will be subjected to men. Second, and flowing from the first, this would include angels. Indeed, the passages cited above show that Christ's exaltation included having dominion over the angels; and we too shall judge or rule over the angels in some fashion. So man is in his present state lower than the angels, but we shall be set up, even as Christ presently is, over them. And hence, humans will be, only for a little while, a little lower than the angels.

Monday, July 9, 2018

7.9.2018

I might be switching my blog over to a new address: WitnessSeekingOrthodoxy.blogspot.com. I'm also probably going to switch my blog over to my new blogger account; presently my blog is linked to it, but I'll make the full switch by August 1st, 2018.

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted

Here is an excellent hymn, suitable for close listening and meditation. It should also be sung more often. It clearly takes a great deal of inspiration from Isaiah 53, which is also one of the best passages in Scripture.


Sunday, July 1, 2018

Family Matters, Christ Matters

Family Matters, Christ Matters 
December 10th, 2017

Let me introduce you to my siblings. I have a brother, Aidan. He's my identical twin, I being the original (or so I say). He's an atheist or agnostic, though, apatheist is probably the better label.[1] I also have a sister, though, I often forget that I do. Horrible, I know. However, she died several years before I was conceived, and even before she was to be born, for my mother suffered a miscarriage. And I could count on one hand how many times anyone told me about her (two, I think).

The point of this post is not to introduce you to my family quick and dead, but to use the misfortune of my sister to introduce a philosophic point. See, it's not that I used to have a sister, but that I have one; for she still exists. So let me speculate about her, first in a way that is incidental to my main point, then as she relates the the point which moved me to write this post.

Is she saved? Obviously she couldn't have come to faith in this life. But she could have been saved after her death. Indeed, many Christians think that those who die in the womb, in infancy, or generally before the age of reason are certainly saved. This is a possibility, but I tend to think that God enlightens such ones upon their deaths. Then, they, now having actualized powers of reason and volition, either come to faith or reject Him. If the former they are saved, if the latter they are damned. Maybe the choice is instantaneous or occurs in short order after death, but it's certainly prior to the Judgment. So there is a chance she is destined for eternal punishment, but there is also a good chance that she 'though asleep lives with Christ' and has the everlasting life ahead of her. Time will tell.[2]

Anyway, as I thought about my sister, my mind returned philosophical anthropology, specifically to the issue of personal identity; I asked myself: what is it that makes it the case that she is the selfsame person now that she was while alive? In her case it can't be psychological properties, or a relationship with Christ, since she had neither before death. It's not physical or bodily continuity, since she lacks a body presently. The only remaining option is that she had / was something immaterial - call it spirit or soul - and that this was the basis for all her psychological and biologic powers, and the source of all her material and immaterial operations. This, then, persisted after her death, and so constituted who she is in the truncated state following her death.

And this led me to consider Jesus' incarnation. In this regard, here's a question for Jehovah's Witnesses: what made it the case that the embryo that came into being in Mary's womb was the same as person as Michael the Archangel?

The answer, I think, is going to be found in the notion of hypostatic union. For, if he pre-existed his earthly advent, whether as angel or God, he took on human nature in his incarnation, not to the exclusion of, but in addition to his first nature. If we reject the notion of hypostatic union, we are forced to accept the Socinian claim that Christ did not pre-exist his being a human. But there are good reasons to affirm his pre-existence, and among these would be any evidence we might adduce for his deity.

But what could a Witness say? It can't be physical or bodily continuity. It can't be in possessing certain memories or engaging in any conscious activity, or, indeed, in any activity. For nothing is held in common between an angel and a zygotic human. There is nothing, unless divine fiat counts - but I don't think it does. For one might as well suggest that God could could call me you and that I'd be the selfsame person as you. God's will is limited in this regard by the divine intellect (as to what is logically possible). 

The heterodox Witness might suggest that humans and angels have the same kind of spirit/soul that enlivens them in their respective bodies. However, this is not permitted for the orthodox Witness, for he will be an anti-dualist. In any event, this idea seems untenable, since it seems to imply that men and angels are only contingently respective bodies. This by itself isn't problematic from a Witness perspective, given their view on 'the Anointed', but for us it should be. Moreover, it might imply that angels and humans are the same kind of being, which is incorrect.

Well, those are my thoughts, what are yours?

[1] Apatheism is apathy (hence the prefix 'apa') toward God and religion.

[2] It seems to me that it is a real possibility that the unevangelized will be handled in the same way. My tentative belief is that upon death God more fully reveals himself. To the extent that one loves God in response to what they know of him (from natural reason or special revelation) in his life he will love God's revelation of himself to him then. If he hated God and loved sin in this life, he will loathe God and reject Him. All we can say for certain is that the Judge of all the earth will not act unjustly.