Capital Punishment affirms that all men are made in God’s image. For someone to murder an image bearer of God is an attack on God directly. So although they are similar, I think they are different.

I enjoy your blog, thanks for dialoging Your spartan story is sadly true!

You know, I have a funny/sad story about the whole abortion situation. I was recently berated by a fellow believer for watching the movie, 300. She basically told me it was deplorable that the Spartans destroyed sickly or deformed children–to which I agreed (just because I watch a movie doesn’t mean I endorse it???). However, my rebuttal was this: at least the Spartans had a much more warranted standard for infanticide than our culture. In our culture, abortion is not necessarily about sickly newborns. It’s much worse—it’s just about them being a nuisance or untimely a drag on life. The point is that current abortions are performed because our culture doesn’t value life—but money! I’m not saying that abortion is always simple, but it sure does seem that way sometimes.

I’ve been dealing with this whole life topic for a while. I think I’m starting to lean toward a no death penalty stance as well. That’s another conversation, however…

Thanks for the conversation, Wyatt. I know you have a heart for truth and I appreciate dialoguing with you about such things.

Those are good points. I know that I need to be better at sharing the gospel. Only hanging out with my christian friends can be Pharisaical, but in seattle its impossible to avoid non-christians. I would struggle if I never had my alone time with non-christians though. Paul desired to be out of the body and with the Lord 2 Cor 5:1-10, and Jesus often retreated with his disciples. So what is the balance? Evangelism is hard, so I usually yield too much there.

As you said about theresa/james… I heard D.A. Carson speak on 1 Cor 11:1, and how we must be visible examples of Christ. Does this imply that we should invite our non-christian friends into our Pharisaical circles?

I’m impressed how fast you answered.

Your comment sounds a little too gnostic for my taste, though I’m not accusing you of being gnostic, hehe, (totally kidding!). My supposition in the entry is based on the goodness of creation as it points and is intended for the glory of God. For example, creation is indeed fallen, but it is not totally evil because God is good and he created it, otherwise we accuse God of being the author of evil and hence fall into some strange platonic view of matter/spirit (this is what Mani did). As for creation or the world, we are part of it and are made in the image of God. Further, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes the creation will be renewed, but I don’t think we ought to generalize the creation as being negative (I’m thinking of the Psalmist’s declaration of the wonder of creation as a pointer to the glory of God, and things like that).

On another note, we could qualify what we mean by the “world.” Do we mean that which God created and said was good in relation to the fall? Do we mean that which is against God? etc. Personally, I’m seeing the “world” in the context above as the mission field, that is, those who need salvation through the love of Christ. But there is indeed another way to understand “world” as in rebellion against God. I’m aware of the multi-dimensional use of the word within the canon of scripture.

In the sense of 2 Cor, the point is not to be mismatched with unbelievers, as you know. What I’m saying is that we need to communicate the love of Christ to the world and not just in our pious circles, otherwise we may become Pharisaical. Now, be that as it may, what I’m not saying is that we accept things that are not from God, obviously. In that sense, there is a demarcation between believers in the world and non-believers of the world.

I’m not authoritative enough to define what a “radical Christian” is. (I suppose Bon’s point was against the Christian church in Germany supporting the Nazi regime. He was part of the Confessing church, to be sure!) However, I know that Jesus loved/taught/saved those who often times were on the outskirts of society. We need to figure out how that works in our own contexts, but I’m not saying that this is simple. As for the Christian and non-christian antithesis that you present to me, here’s what I think:

Q: Do you define a “Radical Christian” as an orthodox christian who doesn’t evangelize?
A: No, but what is meant by evangelize. It’s not monolithic in nature, e.g., evangelism explosion and Billy Grahm are different flavors of evangelistic zeal than Mother Theresa or St. James.

Q: or a someone who believes/lives a lifestyle that is different from society (opposed to syncretism)
A: What is society? It’s not monolithic either. There are Mormons I know who live their lives with more purity than many faithful Christians I know. I suppose that my view of purity is contextual as well? I think the difference is devotion and confession of the Jesus Christ of Scripture–and that’s orthodoxy. Taking it from there would be the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Hence, the result is the fruit of the Spirit, or as Edwards would say–religious affections.

Q: or are you suggesting the a Christian should be identical to a non-Christian?
A: Uhh, no. By definition a person who is a Christian cannot be identical to a non-Christian. However, only a Christian can truly love a non-Christian. I think Bon’s point is that true Christians are commanded to love the world–which is sometimes very difficult to do and looks different in different contexts (e.g., Mark Driscoll contrasted with John Paul).

Q: Or maybe the believe that Creation is evil and is going away entirely (opposed to being renewed)?
A: Creation implies a creator, and yet we know that God is going to renew Creation. Obviously we don’t fully understand that, but I suppose my thoughts are that Creation in and of itself is not evil; rather, “evil” is somehow in Creation. God will one day eradicate evil. Again, I’m not a dualist as you are not. We don’t have a ying/yang situation. God is God and somehow allows evil to be active. I don’t know why but I know that he’ll one day say, “enough.”

I’m confused by this blog entry. Maybe you could explain how this relates to 2 Cor 6:14-18, and also how most of the NT, including Jesus uses the word “world” (kosmos?) negatively — describing the fallen or evilness in creation that is going away.

Do you define a “Radical Christian” as an orthodox christian who doesn’t evangelize? or a someone who believes/lives a lifestyle that is different from society (opposed to syncretism?) or are you suggesting the a Christian should be identical to a non-Christian? Or maybe the believe that Creation is evil and is going away entirely (opposed to being renewed)?

Maybe I’m too confusing!
keep bloggin!

wyatt