Jerry Falwell's two kingdoms

[Charles]

There has been some discussion on comments made by Jerry Falwell Jr. on his support to Trump. An interesting part of what he has said goes like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.b2f053ca05ba

I much prefer the teaching of Jesus:

[KingsGambit]

Falwell has a point but I would quibble majorly with how he articulated it. (And I already started a separate thread on his comments about charity, which I do oppose, and my post isn't going to address those comments at all.)

For Christians, the tension isn't so much earthly values vs. God's values (and I think Falwell is wrong on that point) as it is the now vs. the not yet. We know what the values of the kingdom of God are and we work toward these values, but they will not be fully recognized until Jesus returns. Thus, some compromises have to be made in the meantime, with resources being limited and human nature being what it is. (This is the major point of John Stackhouse's Making the Best Of It, a book that has heavily influenced my views on ethics. Stackhouse is also uber-critical of Falwell's comments, for the record.)

What sort of compromises do I have in mind? I don't mean actively endorsing or tolerating evil (Stackhouse makes the point that there are some things that Christians unequivocally oppose, giving the examples of pornography and tyranny). But a major example is the use of force. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers", and peace is a value of the kingdom of God. In the present world, though, peace cannot be achieved without the use of force, which is a concession to the realities of this world. The main thesis of his book is that our actions on this world should act toward increasing shalom, essentially, the values of God's kingdom. Going back to Falwell's context, I don't think his support for Trump in general counts as achieving shalom so much as it represents a political expression of "the ends justify the means".

[Charles]

Falwell has a point but I would quibble majorly with how he articulated it. (And I already started a separate thread on his comments about charity, which I do oppose, and my post isn't going to address those comments at all.)

For Christians, the tension isn't so much earthly values vs. God's values (and I think Falwell is wrong on that point) as it is the now vs. the not yet. We know what the values of the kingdom of God are and we work toward these values, but they will not be fully recognized until Jesus returns. Thus, some compromises have to be made in the meantime, with resources being limited and human nature being what it is. (This is the major point of John Stackhouse's Making the Best Of It, a book that has heavily influenced my views on ethics. Stackhouse is also uber-critical of Falwell's comments, for the record.)

What sort of compromises do I have in mind? I don't mean actively endorsing or tolerating evil (Stackhouse makes the point that there are some things that Christians unequivocally oppose, giving the examples of pornography and tyranny). But a major example is the use of force. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers", and peace is a value of the kingdom of God. In the present world, though, peace cannot be achieved without the use of force, which is a concession to the realities of this world. The main thesis of his book is that our actions on this world should act toward increasing shalom, essentially, the values of God's kingdom. Going back to Falwell's context, I don't think his support for Trump in general counts as achieving shalom so much as it represents a political expression of "the ends justify the means".

Thank you. A very interesting post that i would not "amen" since there are parts of it I would not really agree with but I liked to read it and it made me think (unbelievable as it may sound to some).

[JimL]

Eh, Falwell Jr. is just another con man like his father. It's no wonder he's a Trump supporter, 2 peas in a pod!

[One Bad Pig]

I"m shocked, shocked, that you failed to link to where we'd addressed this already. Your eisegesis and misrepresentation of Mr. Falwell are duly noted.

Jerry Falwell, like his father, is far from theologically perfect. Ripping his (and Jesus') statements out of context, however, is not an appropriate way to address that. Can you address his comments fairly? We'll see.

[KingsGambit]

I"m shocked, shocked, that you failed to link to where we'd addressed this already. Your eisegesis and misrepresentation of Mr. Falwell are duly noted.

Jerry Falwell, like his father, is far from theologically perfect. Ripping his (and Jesus') statements out of context, however, is not an appropriate way to address that. Can you address his comments fairly? We'll see.

To be somewhat fair to him, I posted that thread in a Christian-only area that he may not have seen.

[mikewhitney]

The two kingdom concept has been standard doctrine since the Reformation. It has often been the preferred option among people who wished not to have a unified kingdom that thusly is run under the Pope.

Although I have not paid any attention to Falwell's doctrines, this is not a doctrine that is aberrant.

The original post showed no inclination to have the Pope or other religious figure dictating the policies of government. I assume then that you too would rather have Christians working under a two kingdom concept.

Now if you like Jesus's teachings better, I would suggest you follow Jesus. His yoke is light.

[NorrinRadd]

There has been some discussion on comments made by Jerry Falwell Jr. on his support to Trump. An interesting part of what he has said goes like this:



I much prefer the teaching of Jesus: <blah blah>

This silly confusion of yours was adequately dealt with in the original thread on this topic.

You could try advocating for the converse, i.e. that we (as a nation) give generously (to other nations), so that it will be given (by God, presumably) unto us, as taught by Jesus in Luke 6; so it would still involve self-interest. But then, we criticize Prosperity Preachers for this sort of "give to get" preaching to individual believers, so why would we apply it to the secular nation as a whole?

The bottom line is that, as a nation, we can better benefit other nations if we have an overflow with which to do so.

[NorrinRadd]

To be somewhat fair to him, I posted that thread in a Christian-only area that he may not have seen.

Ah, ok. I always go from the "New Posts" link except for the two or three times a year I actually start a thread, so I forget about those "zones."

[NorrinRadd]

With a very slight modification, here is my reply from the other thread on this.

------------------

Since I am somehow inexplicably able to penetrate WaPo's force-field, I will quote and comment on a few portions besides what Bill the Cat provided in Reply 10.

Source: WaPo

So, the government you want is one free of religious association?

© Copyright Original Source

This part above is foundational to the article as a whole.




This is good, except he should have gone out of his way to include Antifa as terrorists. Wuss.

Source: WaPo

You and other white evangelical leaders have strongly supported President Trump. What about him exemplifies Christianity and earns him your support?

© Copyright Original Source

His reasons are not the same as mine, but they are fine.

Notice he did NOT claim that anything about Trump "exemplifies Christianity." At this point, I will again bring up an underused point that I have not noticed anyone else addressing: If "exemplifying Christianity" is important, Christians would not vote for a pseudo-Christian cultist such as Romney or any other Mormon.

Source: WaPo

Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?

No.

© Copyright Original Source

The unqualified "No" is astonishingly stupid. I don't *expect* him to do any such thing, but if, e.g., he did something like diddling a young intern with a cigar during his Presidency, I would totally abandon him and call for his resignation, and I hope all Evangelicals would do likewise.

A better answer might have been, "Nothing he could do would persuade me that supporting him over Hilary or any pro-choice liberal was the wrong decision."




This is the portion previously cited. I'm disappointed that he missed an excellent opportunity to denigrate Romney's religion. (I am mainly in favor of doing so in cases where it is one that pretends to be Christian.)

It honestly baffles me that people insist on imposing Mark 12 / Luke 21 on this. He is not denigrating poor people, he is advocating for an economy that reduces their number.

[Mountain Man]

I see Chuck is at it again, this time with a topic that Christians are apparently supposed to disagree with even though he fails once more to provide any scriptural support that would compel us to side with him.

[Cow Poke]

I much prefer the teaching of Jesus:

Then ask Him for forgiveness and accept Him as Lord of your life.

[Bill the Cat]

There has been some discussion on comments made by Jerry Falwell Jr. on his support to Trump... I much prefer the teaching of Jesus:

Jerry was not talking about Christian charity from an individual Christian's perspective. Jesus was. You're taking what both of them were saying out of context.

A government's responsibility is to help where it can. Has nothing to do with selfishness, or me personally for that matter.

[Mountain Man]

Then ask Him for forgiveness and accept Him as Lord of your life.

I think when Chuck says, "I much prefer the teaching of Jesus," that he has this mind...

Buddy_christ.jpg

[Cow Poke]

I think when Chuck says, "I much prefer the teaching of Jesus," that he has this mind...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34283[/ATTACH]

Yes, as well as only agreeing with the distorted versions of what Jesus actually said and ignoring the real meat - the eternal stuff.