There does need to be some clarification though. I was taken aback by your comments which I did earnestly believe were aimed at Joel and I at Unsettled Christianity.
I really have tried to be civil in this debate, but I guess this was an error in communication.
I think it was your quote on a comment on Unsettled that really sealed the heart of the debate:
“OK, you and your friends are not wanting the world to fall back into chaos. But I don’t think you should presume on God to prevent that if you refuse to play your part in preventing it.”
This is exactly the approach I have been arguing against all along. And this “Christus Victor fundamentalist” deals with Peter’s/”dominionists’ approach quite effectively, in my view. But even if I was pushing Penal Substitution, I could argue against Dominionism–especially with the Reformation doctrines of Soli Christi, and Sola Gratia, that we are saved by God alone, and I could just as effectively argue from a political version of monergism. I am that versatile.
Rod, I accept your apology, and would like to apologise for my part in the misunderstandings.
I take it that you are saying that it IS right to presume on God to prevent the world falling into chaos, even if you refuse to play your part in preventing it. How far would you generalise that? Can we presume in every case that if we refuse God’s call to do something that God will always find some other way to do it? Can we presume that, if we fail to stop some disaster happening which we could have prevented, God will prevent it anyway? If a car turns out in front of me when I am driving, is it unnecessary for me to swerve out of its way because God is bound to find some other way to save me? Or can I presume on God to prevent my sins having bad consequences? In another comment I asked about what would happen if I raped all the girls in my town – can I presume that God will stop any of them becoming pregnant or suffering any other ill effects? I know these cases may seem ridiculous, but I genuinely want to find the limits of your teaching that we can presume on God to put things right even when we don’t do the right thing.
Thank you for accepting my apologies, Peter. I accept yours as well.
I really don’t know if I can answer your last questions. You seem to be under some misimpression of what I have said. However, I shall say this: Christus Victor does require obedience of Christians; no where have I and any CV person rejected God placing demands on our lives. What you seem to be mistaken is that we actually play a part “in preventing the world from falling into chaos.” Not only do I not accept this question, but the reasoning behind this. I doubt that you can point to a single point, concrete in human history, where all became chaotic. Sure, we could go to the Third Reich, and I hate to do so, but the burden is shared by Christians too for that chaos.
CV is when Christians are doing the right thing; it is not a back up plan, you know, God playing the nanny. It is Christians praying, being faithful, and God coming through in unexpected and surprising ways. To even try to draw out hypothetical situations such as “if I raped all the girls in my town – can I presume that God will stop any of them becoming pregnant or suffering any other ill effects? I know these cases may seem ridiculous, but I genuinely want to find the limits of your teaching that we can presume on God to put things right even when we don’t do the right thing” is ridiculous. That is not what CV is about.
Thanks for the clarification. But since you agree that “Christus Victor does require obedience of Christians”, and you agree that some Christians should go into politics (however defined), I don’t understand why you react so strongly against me when I write that Christians should obey God’s individual call to go into politics.
As for the world falling into chaos, in our conversations I have already given two examples of this happening in the past, at least to specific parts of the world: the fall of the western Roman Empire in the time of Benedict, and the fall of Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah. I could add the fall of the Soviet Union, in my own time – I witnessed the immediate aftermath from 1993. Obviously none of these were worldwide, and I am not suggesting that any coming chaos would be completely worldwide. But God did not intervene to stop these things happening, and we can’t presume that he will intervene to keep our western civilisation afloat. Maybe he will turn them to the good of his church, as arguably he did in each of the examples I list. But each collapse also brought a lot of human suffering.
I am really glad that CV is not about the kind of scenario I mentioned. But if it is about “God coming through in unexpected and surprising ways”, then I don’t think it should limit him by not allowing him to call Christians into politics.
God does intervene, just not in the ways we expect. God is far more creative than us, Peter. Intervention I would say is a precarious word at best, wouldn’t you say? That it leaves God doing nothing for a while, and then panicking and doing something drastic.
I would say in both instances, God was directly responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire and USSR. It may seem crazy, but I do, and reading through the first parts of Augustine’s Confessions, thats the way he saw things with regards to Rome. As for the USSR, yes, part of me does think God worked to unravel the Soviet Union. Through the work of the Polish resistance, for example, providing visions of hope throughout the world. Giving dreams is one of the many ways that God works, its in Scripture as well.
Of course there is a risk of human suffering, but was God responsible for that? I think that human beings and their policies made the suffering and “chaos” worse. What you see in the madness, I see beauty and freedom. Of course, I have different, and less than positive views of the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Always have.
I didn’t mean to imply any positive view of the Soviet Union. But it did bring stability and some prosperity for a time at least to an urban middle class. Many of these people found themselves destitute, even begging, in the 1990s. The lucky ones were left with effective ownership of an apartment which they could then rent out to foreigners like me.
But is it only evil empires which collapse into chaos? Well, no empire is free from evil. But the comparatively benign ones tend to become evil before they collapse, probably because good rulers can usually save their countries from chaos.
I reject all forms of anarchy, so I agree with you that political leads can “save” their countries from chaos, but I hesitate with the USSR, especially when talking to my Bulgarian Baptist friend who used to be Eastern Orthodox at academic conferences. Just how far governments go to bring about order, there is a thin line, but at the same time there is the example of Jesus the Suffering Servant which we could all benefit from.