Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Justin Bieber churchmanship

Steve Zrimec

How about explaining to the Senator that he has a duty to promote only just war and stand against pre-emptive war? But where do you draw the line, Steve? When is it better for a pastor to keep his politics to himself and not spiritually brow-beat a congregant into pursuing his own politics just because the man happens to be a magistrate? Do you think political liberty is ends when a man goes from private citizen to public magistrate? Do you think there is no difference between political behavior and personal behavior? If not, when does it become unwarranted conscience binding to take a man aside and instruct him on how he should vote or make public policy? When it’s anything other than abortion and gay marriage? Do abortion and gay marriage play by entirely different rules when it comes to political liberty? If so, why?

Your battery of questions is fraught with tendentious assumptions:

i) I don’t draw a hard line between clergy and laity. I’m not Roman Catholic.

Some laymen are more theologically astute than some clergymen. Some clergymen are more politically astute than some laymen. Or a clergyman may be more astute on some issues while a layman is more astute in others. In many situations, the conversation can go both ways.

ii) I think a pastor should keep his politics to himself if he has nothing worthwhile to say. But what about a pastor who majored in international relations, or wrote a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation on just-war theory?

Or what if, before he became a pastor, he was a long-time missionary in the country under consideration, and has maintained contacts on the ground. He might be in a position to offer the congregant excellent advice on the geopolitical situation.

It’s quite unintelligent to erect an artificial barrier between clergy and laity regardless of individual aptitude or personal background.

iii) Your question takes for granted that just-war theory is opposed to preemptive war. But just-war theorists like J. Daryl Charles would demur (Cf. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition.)

iv) Whether or not to go to war is arguably a prudential question rather than a duty. Not just a question of morality. But also involving questions of risk assessment. Best and worst-case scenarios. Potential consequences of action or inaction.

v) You also resort to girlyman rhetoric about “browbeating” a congregant, “binding his conscience,” and squishing his “political liberty.” Do you think a civil magistrate is such a hothouse flower that he will wilt if exposed to a rational exchange of views on public policy?

When I hear a pastor say something I disagree with, I don’t feel put upon. He has his opinion, and I have mine.

When did grown men become oh-so fragile? Is this the Justin Bieber school of ecclesiology? 

vi) As for binding the conscience, it’s really quite simple: truth binds, but error does not. If the pastor is right, then what he says ought to bind the conscience of the listener. But if what he says is wrong, then it can’t bind the conscience of the listener.

I don’t object to a pastor telling a congregant who happens to be a lawmaker how he should vote as long as the pastor has a solid argument.

Likewise, if a layman thinks the pastor was off-the-wall in his interpretation of Scripture, and the layman has a better interpretation, he is within his rights to explain that to the pastor.

Reasons, not roles, are where I draw the line. Which side has better reasons. So I play by the same rules across the board.

9 comments:

  1. As for binding the conscience, it’s really quite simple: truth binds, but error does not. If the pastor is right, then what he says ought to bind the conscience of the listener. But if what he says is wrong, then it can’t bind the conscience of the listener.

    Makes sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What's a Bieber?"

    I think it's a rodent primarily known for building dams and keeping busy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When I hear a pastor say something I disagree with, I don’t feel put upon. He has his opinion, and I have mine."

    Is there not a higher authority then I have mine and you have yours?

    Especially when you talk of the binding of the conscience of the listener? Right now I have several in both congregations quite mad at me because their consicence is being stricken by what I am saying at times and they are resisting the binding.

    The issue being the binding of the Word of God and the work of the Spirit to transform us while we live this life.

    Having majored in international politics, Middle East and Development Issuses, I REALLY LIKED your comments about the pastor being able to comment on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In context, I make the point that opinions are not born equal. It depends on the quality of the reasoning. The source and standard of judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Zrimec: " But where do you draw the line, Steve?"

    Implicit to the barrage of questions is that Steve Zrimec can't conceive of where to draw lines.

    Since when is another man's blindness conscience-binding on others?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I posted the following comment which has been subsequently deleted by the "Justin Bieber" moderators at Green Baggins on their post New, New Warrior Children Thread. It surprises me that it was deleted since Reed DePace and David Gadbois should see how it contributes to the discussion of R2K:

    Zrim asks these battery of questions of Steve Hays:

    “How about explaining to the Senator that he has a duty to promote only just war and stand against pre-emptive war? But where do you draw the line, Steve? When is it better for a pastor to keep his politics to himself and not spiritually brow-beat a congregant into pursuing his own politics just because the man happens to be a magistrate? Do you think political liberty is ends when a man goes from private citizen to public magistrate? Do you think there is no difference between political behavior and personal behavior? If not, when does it become unwarranted conscience binding to take a man aside and instruct him on how he should vote or make public policy? When it’s anything other than abortion and gay marriage? Do abortion and gay marriage play by entirely different rules when it comes to political liberty? If so, why?”

    Steve Hays doesn’t duck and run like some R2K folks, and he answers Zrim’s questions: HERE

    —-

    Question for Darryl Hart:

    “Does R2k condemn those Christian pastors and churches who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England?”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's another comment that's been deleted by the "Justin Bieber" moderators at Green Baggins:

    TurretinFan: "I notice that you [Darryl Hart] haven’t addressed #135."

    Curate: "Doug: As I am not getting any answers from dgh, and since you have followed this more closely than I have, what does dgh think the commands are that are revealed to all men in general revelation, and are they different from the Ten Words?"

    My question to Darryl Hart has been on the dock for awhile:

    "Does R2k condemn those Christian pastors and churches who participated in the public square to wage civil disobedience against the civil magistrates in England?”

    Also, I do recall TurretinFan suggesting that since many things get dropped [particularly by R2K proponents], a formal debate would be better.

    Darryl Hart, will you engage in a formal debate with Steve Hays?

    If you're afraid of getting beat by Steve Hays, and that's why you haven't accepted, how about you *and* Zrim against Steve Hays?? Two on one. Your combined R2K power against just solitary Steve Hays. How about it?

    Zrim, are you up for it? Go ahead and tag-team with your buddy Darryl Hart against Steve Hays in a formal debate. Have TurretinFan serve as the moderator. Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's like watching a Twilight Zone episode based in Scranton and Dwight Shrute is the magistrate.

    ReplyDelete