Does it Really Matter if Washington Took Communion or Not?

The following was left by D.G. in the comments section of one of Jon Rowe's previous posts on Lilliback and "Sacred Fire" that seems to echo the question that Brad Hart recently asked in his post about Gordon Wood:

"Not to take issue with my friends, Mark David Hall or David Hall (should they form band, Hall & Hall?), I'm not sure what the point of this work of historical excavation. So, what if the American Revolution was Calvinist? What does that prove? That somehow America was Christian, or that liberals or secularists have no legitimate place in the U.S.? Or does it mean, as Barry Shain might argue, American liberalism is different from its 20th century version? I have no trouble telling the difference between John Adams and FDR. Do I need to know the Calvinist resistance literature to spot that difference?

This is what I don't get. There seems to be an agenda -- that if we get the founding right with its respect for religion, then we'll get X right today. What is the X?"

What we get wrong about the founding is highlighted in this statement from Ed Brayton yesterday at Dispatches From the Culture Wars:

"There isn't a single provision in the Bill of Rights that has any concept even remotely analogous in the Bible. The Bible does not say a word about political liberty or political rights."

Ed stated this in the context of Cynthia Dunbar's clever use of a prayer offered by Chief Justice Earl Warren that implied that the Bill of Rights came from the Bible. Ed is correct in that the Bill of Rights is not found in the Bible. What he ignores is that the chief concept that Western Christian thought ties inalienable rights to, imago dei, is in the Bible.

The Profound Ignorance in Respect to Our Founding Continues

I am involved in an interesting debate at Dispatches about inalienable rights. It started with this statement by Ed Brayton:

"Then by all means, please name one thing in the Bill of Rights that has an analog in the Bible. Just one. Good luck."

Here is the relevant part of my response:

"The biblical concept of imago dei and man being the workmanship of God was the foundation for Western thought on inalienable rights all the way up to the founding. This goes back to canon law but it most pronounced in Aquinas. He took this biblical concept and added it to the wisdom of the ages seen in Aristotle and produced Christian thought in regards to political theory.

It is this concept of inalienable rights thats taken to its logical conclusion in the bill of rights. So, are the bill of rights found in the Bible? No. Did Christian theologians use the Bible and the wisdom of the ages to come up with a rational for inalienable rights that is unique to Judeo-Christian thought? Yes."

"Rational Christianity": A Contribution of Medieval Political Thought

In his last post Brad Hart quoted Montesquieu as saying:

"When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south adhered still to the Catholic. The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will for ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence of the climate than that which has one. In the countries themselves where the Protestant religion became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government. Luther having great princes on his side would never have been able to make them relish an ecclesiastical authority that had no exterior pre-eminence; while Calvin, having to do with people who lived under republican governments, or with obscure citizens in monarchies, might very well avoid establishing dignities and preferments."

This article here provides a different narrative. One that at a certain time in my life I would have totally opposed but now tentatively agree with. It is the narrative of a "spirit of liberty" within certain strains in the Catholicism:

"It will suffice for our purpose to consult, in detail, but two Catholic churchmen who stand out as leading lights for all time. The one is representative of medieval learning and thought, the other stood on the threshold of the medieval and modern world.

Religion Left to the States?

A good discussion broke out in the comments section under my last post American Creation: Time to Move Forward? that I should have brought up to the main page a while back but I got busy.  A commenter named David Kalivas is debating Tom Van Dyke about whether religion was left to the states in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment.  Below is part of the dialogue:

David stated:

"This was not a Christian document, it was a statement declaring the dissolution of a social contract with the British Crown. Referring to the DOI as a religious document is not reading it, nor focusing on the men who wrote it. Certainly, given the war had begun, there were other urgencies in mind and the major concern of the Continental Congress was to agree on dissolution and have a declaration that articulated their case against England and then get to the details of funding and waging the war. It is also interesting to note when time came for a Federal Constitution that created the legal framework for the new country,there were no references to divine providence or any such deity."

My Latest From American Creation

In the spirit of practicing what I preach I decided to bring the discussion that broke out in the comments section of Jon Rowe's excellent post on "Testing" the Christian Nation thesis to the main page. I am not sure where it originated, but a great discussion about the merits of original intent as a method of interpreting the Constitution came up. As I went to the section on the Constitutional Convention to read some old posts I came across one by Tom Van Dyke from September 6th on Madison, Jefferson, and their views on how to interpret the Constitution. The following quotes are reproduced from his post word for word:

“The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs...”

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

---Jefferson

"It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act."

"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

--Madison

So here is my challenge to all the contributers, commenters, and "cultural warriors" alike:

History means nothing if it does not relate to our current lives and the issues of our day. It is about dead men and events that cannot be changed. The value of studying it is in realizing that the issues we debate today have been debated before. Sometimes it is the same product with a different brand name but nonetheless the same or very similar issue. With that said, how about some posts and comments about how the founders would have, and did, debate the very same issues that we moderns do today?

I think the Culture Wars debate that we see on Ed Brayton's blog should come over to here. But I think the modern tendency to spout off our modern opinions should be backed up with some historical facts that I see lacking in this national debate we call the "Culture Wars". That is the problem with the "New Media" of the "Information Age": Everyone has a strong opinion but few can back it up with facts. I think this is what Tom was trying to say in his most recent post.

No disrespect to Ed, who I consider a friend because he took some time to educate me on many of these issues when others wanted to mock me to suit their biased agenda, but I think the frame of discussion we have established on this blog is more proper, civil, and productive toward solving some of problems related to these issues because we do put it into a historical context thanks to another man I now consider a friend: Jon Rowe. If I am right then our discussions at American Creation need start reaching a wider audience. That could get messy but I think we can handle it.

So to start it off I challenge the crowd here, and at Dispatches(Jon can you email this to Ed), that says that "original intent" does not matter to take on Jefferson and Madison. Maybe Barton is right about more than most want to give him credit for? I think we need to talk about Federalism(like Madison and Jefferson did above) and the intent of possibly "most" Americans at that time when we ask if this was intended or purposed to be a Christian Nation. I would also argue that we eventually need to go further back than the Constitution and study where the ideas for the Declaration came from and if they were "Christian" or not?

These are the two topics in this discussion that most strict secularists seem to want to ignore. Most of the biased Historians that write on this topic certainly ignore it. The floor is open to argue with Jefferson and Madison for all who care to take them on; Lemon Test or not.

Fair warning to any in the "Dispatches" crowd that wants to step up to the plate:

I am setting you up. I would hope that you come up to bat with a better thesis than the "liars" motif.

Fair Warning to Barton:

I am setting you up. I think you may find that the original intent had nothing to with your modern political agenda. In fact, I am out to prove that it was much more libertarian in nature than you let on and is being undermined by your modern political agenda.

My Sincere thanks to Tom Van Dyke, Jon Rowe, and Ed Brayton:

My internet friends that have taught me more about this topic I am about to begin to pursue at a graduate level than anyone else. You guys changed my outlook on life more than you will ever know with our discussions.

The Myth of Genesis One?

Last week I wrote about light and darkness and Genesis 1 and would like to continue on that theme in this post. After watching "Mission Impossible II" and "Unbreakable" in the last few months, this theme has been on my mind. In both movies, there is reference to ancient Greek and comic book myths that explore both tragedy and hope along with good and evil as represented in the contrast between light and darkness. These movies seem to hint at the hypotheses that good cannot be understood without evil and that the oral and written traditions of the ancient world seem able to teach us about both.

The main difference I have seen between cultures that emphasize oral rather than writtentraditions is that oral history seems to exaggerate to prove a point. This is essentially what the Samuel L. Jackson character says about comic books in "Unbreakable". He states that the super-heros are an exaggerated form truth handed down to teach us something. More specifically, of truly gifted people that fate, karma, or god has put on earth for some noble reason. His mission in life is to find the hero so he can learn about himself as the villain. Somewhere along life he became convinced that the weakness that caused him to break bones at the drop of the hat was a sign that someone else was out there with superhuman strength;

the super-hero.

He spent his life trying to create one disaster after another to find Mr. "Unbreakable"; thus finding purpose in his life. He thought his purpose was to be the evil in the world that would make clear the good. This is no different than the first few chapters of Genesis in my mind. It seems to me that perhaps centuries of church scholars have been wrong about Genesis in that they miss the purpose of the book. In my opinion, the purpose is either to provide a precise written history of creation, the origins of man, and the fall or it was to put into written form the oral traditions of the East about creation, the origins of man, and the fall. If it is the former, then much of the commentary on this book misses the original intent: To use exaggerated language to prove a point.

Perhaps it is much like the Renaissance art forms of Idealism and Realism. As the following quote seems to indicate, the more idealized(less literal) art gets the more the sublime is emphasized:

"The closer artists came to the High Renaissance art the more classical, monumental, and ideal figures became. Famous paintings in the High Renaissance had grandeur, idealism, and soft rendering of details. Some artists too became interested in the immediacy of the moment or how things looked in an instant of time. This led to an interest in the sublime, man fighting against man, good against evil to the death, and the action of the moment with all its expressions."

Sublime means the quality of greatness and would seem to point to perhaps the purpose of Genesis was not to record history but was a story much like a Greek myth designed to paint a snap shot of a moment to prove a point: That God is great. This line of my reasoning began in a post-modern type church meeting where one of the leaders of the meeting got up and stated: "Face it friends Genesis and Adam and Eve are myths." Not myth in the modern sense of lies but myth in the sense of oral tradition with the purpose of making a point. I rejected this at the time but a while later began reading the blog of a man named Henry Neufeld who is a friend of a man named Ed Brayton who blogs at Dispatches on The Culture Wars at www.scienceblogs.com. He had studied the history of it and had come to the same conclusion. I was more open but still rejected this idea.

Then, when I had thrown out all the assumptions embedded in the form of Christianity I had been taught and began to think for myself, I watched these two movies and it finally clicked:

The whole point of the first few chapters of Genesis seeks to contrast the darkness from the light! This line of inquiry has led me to go back and read Thomas Aquinas and I started with his writings on the existence of God.

Guess what? People asked the same primary question back then: If God is everywhere and God is good how does evil exist? Maybe it is just like the comic books. Maybe evil has to exist to show the good. Maybe the villain has to has to show himself for the hero to be seen? I realize these presuppositions in this last paragraph that need to be explored but more on that next time....

Response to Gregg Fraser on Romans 13

Gregg Fraser responded to some comments I made on the blog "American Creation" a few weeks back. The questions are about the liberation of Israel from Egypt and whether this is an example of revolt against legitimate authority. This was all in the context of a discussion about whether The American Revolution can be supported from the Bible.

The disagreement is over the interpretation of Romans 13 where it states:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is not authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement 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 he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer."

This verse is the lynch pin of the "Divine Right" for kings to rule argument that was used throughout European History. It also is somewhat supportive of the Roman, Persian, and Mongolian Empires' idea of Kings being God on earth. In short, this line of thinking has been used by tyrants to discriminate against, enslave, and even kill off people who get in the way of their expansionist ideas. Since I reject this practice I reject this interpretation of scripture. I think it sets reason and logic aside and sends one down the road toward fatalism.


Perhaps the best example of this idea is Hitler and the Jews. I asked my World History class why the vast majority of Jews did not fight back? Some Jews did not realize that Hitler was out to exterminate them until they went into the shower room and the poison gas came out of the shower heads. What caused this passive reaction to such brutality? I am not sure that anyone really has a good answer to this question but it should be asked. Why? So it does not happen again.


History is filled with examples of people living under oppressive and abusive governments simply because they were told that to oppose the will of the King was to oppose the will of God. I see this theme repeated over and over again in the Showtime series "The Tudors". One advisor to the King exterminated thousands of woman and children based on the flawed reasoning mentioned above. He went against his conscience to appease the King based on not wanting to disobey God.


This was the same King who had revolted against the Pope so he could marry who he wanted. If the Pope was God's authority then when the King refused to submit to him did he lose his authority? For that matter who says these men are the authorities? What keeps someone else from claiming "Divine Right" and refusing to listen to either? It seems that whoever manages to raise the largest army has God's favor since that is usually what settles these disputes over who is King. Sounds more like Darwin's "survival of the fittest" gone mad than anything to do with Christianity.




These questions open up a huge can of worms about what legitimate authority really means. This issue really is the crux of the entire discussion. I share these thoughts to put the discussion of Romans 13 and the revolt of the Israelites against Pharaoh into the context of the larger subject of legitimate authority, God's use of it to punish wrong doers, and in what context disobedience, resistance, rebellion, and revolution are permitted.


I say all this to illuminate my main issue with Dr. Fraser's interpretation: If he is right then Hitler was established by God to exterminate the Jews as punishment for something. If that is true then logically anyone who tried to help a Jew was fighting against God. For that matter anyone who ever questions "authority" is opposing God's will. That is if we take his ideas to their logical conclusion. At least in my view.


This whole discussion comes down to government. I would say that the more specific issue is borders. A drawn border represents a government. The problem with most borders in the world were drawn by outsiders. The best example is along the Silk Road in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The largest Nation of people without a border around them is near the Khyber pass region. Years ago the British came along and decided to split the area, and thus the Nation, into two countries. I assume that this was done to divide and conquer so that they could control this vital trade route between China and Europe.(No time to prove this thesis in this post beyond the following example)


If I am right then Romans 13 prohibits this Nation of people from doing anything about it because they have to submit to the authority. What authority? Is it the British and Cecil Rhodes? If it is then God supports the following statement:

"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."

If the British were the authority then God was behind these plans just the same way he must have been behind Cortes and company when the discriminated against, enslaved, and killed off the Aztecs.


If the legitimate authority is Pakistan and Afghanistan governments why so? Why should this Nation of people submit to governments that someone else set up with greed as motivation? Do these governments override their tribal or clan governments? If so why? What if the Tribal government tells someone to resist the outsiders and the National government tells them not too? Which do you listen to? Which one is establishing God's will?


I am sure Dr. Fraser gets my point philosophical point. I also get his Biblical point: God uses both just and unjust governments to judge the Nations. This is in the Bible and is indisputable in my view. My problem is how can we know for sure when this is taking place? If not, then why not error on the side of overcoming evil with good. This is the verse that precedes Romans 13. I know this verse would seem to support Mr. Fraser's pacifist reading of Romans 13 but I am not so sure.


Ecclesiastes 3:8:

"There is a time for war and a time for peace"


If this is true then war can be good. In fact, your interpretation of Romans 13 would seem to confirm this. King George was God's authority and he liked to start wars. Thus war is good. In fact, war is God's will because His authority on earth that starts wars against the weak of the world for profit is God's way of bringing wrath on the evil doer. If this is true then the Revolutionaries refusal to pay taxes to support this is opposing God too. That is part of Romans 13 also. Maybe God was punishing the colonists for their audacity to go against his chosen servant by sending Red Coats to kill them off? This assumes that the weak are guilty of some sort of sin and leads down the theological flaws of Job's friends.


Could the time for war possibly be to defend the weak against the strong? Can this be "good" that resists evil? If it is then it is a valid way to overcome evil biblically. I ask you, Dr. Fraser, which form of war would seem to be "good"? The former or the latter? Is the loser automatically assumed to have been on the wrong side of God? Several wars in history have had both sides claiming the favor of God. The Civil War would be a good example. Can we at least agree that to discern the will of God and his use of judgement in the punishment of evil is a complex affair?


Now that I feel this discussion has been put into the right logical and biblical context, I will address the topic that led to Dr. Fraser's direct questions to me about the liberation of the Israelites. This was part of a long discussion about the Founding of America and whether we are a Christian Nation or not. Dr. Fraser's contention is that we are not. I would agree in the sense that most Christian Nationalists and members of the Religious Right would see it.(Though I do believe the Millenial Reign will come to earth but I will post on this later) I just do not think this is a legitimate argument to prove his point that we both agree on. Furthermore, I think it dangerous reasoning for oppressed peoples. I also have seen tyrant pastors use this verse to control people which has led to severe emotional baggage. I have had personal experience with this.


The whole "God said because I am in charge" movement needs to die a slow death. I hope the Religious Right and Christian Nationalist movements die with it too. I respond to Dr. Fraser with these goals in mind that I think we both share. I also respond to what I feel is an overreaction by some to these movements to just completely separate religion and politics all together. I believe Dr. Fraser is an associate of John Mac Arthur and they both share the view that the Christians focus should be on promoting the gospel not politics because God's kingdom is not of this world according to scripture.


This view can easily lead one down the road toward fatalism as well. This fatalism seems to promote an undue focus on the spiritual world and the afterlife at the expense of doing good in this life. The same type of reasoning overcame China in the Middle Ages.


Neo-Confucianists responded to the overemphasis of Buddhists on the spiritual world and the after life by teaching more or less that this world is real and that the key to happiness is to participate in the world. Within a few hundred years, land reform came about and a new educated class used the Civil Service Exam to break the hold of the Buddhist elite that had been buying up and controlling all the land. By the time of Marco Polo he was able to describe the progress of "Kinsay" in glowing terms. This progress included the new educated class that overthrew the Buddhists.


I think the Neo-Confucianists had it more right philosophically then modern Christians. Why? Modern Christians seem to have thrown out the Lord's Prayer:

"This is then how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."


This clearly seems to state that we should pray that God's will would come to earth through his kingdom. I know this is a loaded topic and that much has been written about it. But I think my point is clear. To emphasize the spiritual world over the physical and the afterlife over this life to an extreme can distort the picture of who God is. He can come off to the world as an uncaring tyrant. Possibly almost like the Deist God that sets things in motion and just stands back and watches. Or like the Calvinist God that only intervenes on behalf of "His Children".


It is with these goals in mind I addressed Mr. Fraser's argument and commented on "American Creation". At the core of the discussion is the meaning of Romans 13. I have read some different interpretations of this verse that seem plausible and the best I have heard is that God is talking about legitimate government that should not be feared by those out to do good. Which leads back to my question about what it really means to overcome evil with good as stated in Romans 12 that precedes the verses in question.


I think the key to understanding this passage is Romans 12:18. It states to be at peace with all men IF it is possible. The key word is if. I know the next verses talk about feeding your enemy and doing nice things to him to put hot coals on his head. I struggle with these verses and always have in that I am not sure how far to take this stance. It goes into the whole turn the other cheek argument. I also think it is clear that Jesus did not come to lift the Jews from their political oppression. I just do not think this eliminates political revolution as a Biblical concept. I think it was more of Jesus showing priorities. His priority was to die. Any type of revolt would have been counter productive to his main goal.


As far as that goes, I can imagine someone feeling a calling from God to die in order to show the love of God. I have no problem with this and have read many accounts of martyrs that chose this path rather than fight back that I can logically and biblically see support for. I can see the merits of the tactics of Martin Luther King and Gandhi and the good that came about from civil disobedience.


My question is if this would have worked against Hitler? I think not. I also acknowledge the merits in letting God repay as it states in Romans 12. But this taken to an extreme can lead to severe pacifism that puts the weak of the world as risk if they buy into these types of teaching.

With all that stated, I think it can be "good" to actively resist evil by taking up arms and fighting when it is no longer possible to be at peace. I think Mr. Fraser would agree with me to a point until I talk about arms and war. He stated on "American Creation"in response to a comment I left:

"There is a difference between "disobedience" and "resistance". Authorities should be disobeyed when they command disobedience to God, but "resistance" is never justified."

This quote is a good place to start my response to his specific comments and questions.


I have no idea what the difference between "disobedience" and "resistance" is in this context. In fact, if Mr. Fraser's interpretation is right then "disobedience" could be ruled out with a strict interpretation of Romans 13. But this cannot be because we both understand that Jesus himself disobeyed the authorities at times. His disciples did as well at times. What makes this "disobedience" and not "resistance"? If the King is God's vessel to punish wrong doers then how it is ever permissible to question him period? I wonder if Mr. Fraser has a list of what constitutes "disobedience" and "resistance"? I guess my question would be: if "disobedience", which by definition is not submission, is okay in some instances then why not "resistance"?
Both are non-submission which seems to be outlawed in Romans 13.


The context of this comment was his disagreement of my example of Moses being sent to liberate the Israelites as support for revolution/resistance against tyrants. My comment

stated:

"If revolution is always wrong then God is a liar. He told Moses to go and break away from Pharaoh and even helped him. So many people take one scripture our of context. There are numerous times that Kings were taken out by someone and it says God was behind it. Ahab comes to mind. A reading of the books of Kings and Chronicles proves this"

Dr. Fraser replied:

"God did NOT tell Moses to "break away from Pharaoh"-where? What verse? Told Moses to go to Pharaoh (not to organize a rebellion) and repeat to him God's demand that he let the Israelites go. When Pharaoh refused, Moses still did not organize a rebellion- He just kept repeating God's words to Pharaoh. Revolution is always wrong and God is not a liar."

Lets go through the Socratic Method here to gain clarity. What I need is a definition of revolution and rebellion. I am sure that Pharaoh, or any tyrant that thought he was God or sent by God, felt that coming to ask to be let go was rebellion. It is certainly lack of submission to authority. As far as revolution, it can mean anything. I guess it implies armed revolt. But it does not have to be of the Russian variety. I also think the Declaration of Independence is part of the American Revolution. The arms were not taken up until the British came to enforce the King's will and peace was no longer possible. I wonder if Dr. Fraser has a problem with the Declaration of Independence and would deem it rebellion or revolution.


If so he should have just as much of a problem with Moses going to Pharaoh. Why? The essence of the story is the same: People invoke the name of God as the reason to relieved from the oppression of a tyrant. This was more than likely in response to the tyrants insistence that God had told him they existed to fulfill his will because we was god or sent by god. To question Pharaoh's right to hold them was to question the gods. The Declaration was written to confront the "Divine Right" of Kings. What is the difference?


If Dr. Fraser's problem with the rebellion is only when arms come into play than this should be clarified. If this is so then I still have a problem. Why does disobedience, rebellion, revolution have to stop short of self defense? Is it possible that the Israelites did not take up arms because they had none? Another reason could have been because they had not been attacked. How do we know that God would have a problem with them if they had fought back when attacked? There are numerous instances when they encountered a foreign authority in the desert and were told to fight. What was different about Pharaoh? This gets back to what authority is legitimate? Was Moses legitimate when he told them to go and attack the people in the desert or was the foreign king the authority that was not to be revolted against?


As far a when Moses was told to break away from Pharaoh it seems obvious to me when he states in Exodus 3:10, "I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people out of Egypt." Since they were under the government of Pharaoh and God was sending Moses to bring them out of Egypt I think that states clearly that he was sent to break away from the government of Pharaoh. How is this not breaking away?


I do not understand unless you take a hyper-Calvinist approach that we are all robot vessels that just stand by and God does everything. If this is true then why tell Adam to work the ground. Why not just sit by and let God do everything. Another example is David. One time he asked God if he should attack and God said yes and he routed his enemies. The next time when they came he asked again and God told him to wait and listen for the breeze in the trees. The former does not rule out the latter as a way in which God brings about His will on earth.


Dr. Fraser also responded to my question as to when it clearly states that God sent someone to kill a king and how this jives with his theory:

"As for rulers going down, God uses the sinful activity of men for his purposes and makes it work to fulfill his plan-but that does not change the fact that the action was sinful/wrong(the end does not justify the means)."

I could use various examples to prove this nonsensical(is that a word?) but one that seems to leave Dr. Fraser's argument lifeless comes to mind in Judges 3:8-11:

"The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Risha-thaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years. But when they cried out to the LORD and he gave them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger, who saved them. THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD CAME UPON HIM, SO THAT HE BECAME ISREAL'S JUDGE AND WENT TO WAR. The Lord gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aramin into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. So the land had peace for forty years."

So God punished someone by sending an oppressor in accordance with Romans 13. This backs up your contention that God uses evil empires to punish or judge people. This included Israel. But it also seems to prove my point that it could be "good" to resist this evil in a war. It clearly states that God raised him up and the Spirit of God was with him. If this is sin then God is a sinner. Dr. Fraser's refutation and interpretation die here it would seem. Logic and the Bible prove him wrong in my view.


There are two more comments I would like to respond to. The first is:


"Jesus did NOT tell his disciples to "get their swords" when they came for him-what's the verse? BEFORE they came for Him, He told his disciples to CARRY swords in order to fulfill prophecy. When they said they had two swords( For 12 men), He said that was enough-because they were not to be used. He rebuked Peter for USING a sword, which was never the intent."


The point about prophecy is non-sensical. It is much like your thoughts that God did not send Moses to break away from Pharoah's rule. Two swords does not seem like many I agree. Maybe it is all they had. I think my point about him getting mad at Peter is because Peter struck before being struck.


It was probably more about Peter trying to prevent the death of Jesus again. I would also say that even though His purpose was to die he did not expect his friends to just sit there and take it if they were attacked. If you can supply any verse where someone is attacked first, then seek to keep peace if at all possible, and then protect themselves and God rebukes them then I will listen. You will not because it is not in the Bible. I also refer again to the story of Othniel above for support of my contention.


The final Fraser comment I would like to address is:


"I disagree with your assessment: I think most people have a problem with Christianity because 'men love the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds are evil." You complain about lack of choice but when men have a choice they reject God."




My assessment was based on missionary travel, numerous conversations with unbelievers from almost all religious backgrounds, and how I felt before I was saved. What about you? I am pretty sure I have talked to at least a few hundred thousand people about this. I sent out a church kid who thought I was wrong to ask 100 people if they wanted to go to church. Not one did just like I told him. Most for the same reason I stated that you reject. Do church people have any responsility to represent God the right way at all? If not they why did Jesus send out witnesses? I chose God. Even if no one else does this refutes your comments on choice.


By they way if we are talking about who the Christian(many resort to this when confronted with people who disagree) is I have tickets ready for anyone who doubts me to some of the places I have been to share about Christ(I actually regret it now I went about it the wrong way) and see who is willing to really die for this and who just sits around running their mouth. Comments like the last one is is why people hate church. This includes me now too.


I got tired of trying to defend it so I left. Best year of my life. I spent this Sunday writing this. Made me think. Sermons never do so this was time well spent. I apologize if the last comment here offends you(Dr. Fraser) but I mean it. Arrogant Christians turn off people. You seem like the type that may be so sure your right you do not listen. I could be wrong but it comes across that way. Get out of the church scene and maybe it will sharpen your message.


I think it is good that you come on sites like "American Creation" but that is still probably preaching to the choir. Go on Dispatches on the Culture Wars and see how others think, get roughed up some, and people may listen more. Just a thought. Maybe you do it I do not know. I would just watch how you and church people come off. It is not all about people liking darkness. Some of the concerns are valid and comments like the last one just blows them off and makes you all look ridiculous to unbelievers. It is a persecution complex.


It is also dangerous. Most Christians I have met that were raised in a certain tradition and base their beliefs on what they were taught never question it. When one thing they have believed is proven wrong when reason is applied the house of cards crumbles. Up to 80% of church kids lose their faith in the first year of college. I hear not too many are coming back. These same words have fallen on deaf ears before. I do hope you consider retracting your last comment and acknowledge that people have some legitimate concerns with the church. I think the thing that tops the list is the authoritarian stuff that starts with abuse of Romans 13.


Thanks for the discussion, you made me think. I am sure my reasoning and application of scripture is flawed in some points. But I think I have proven my case. At least to myself. I look forward to further exchange to sharpen my thoughts.