Why should he keep his mouth shut? Should a Christian not think someone should be assassinated? Is it his position as a "televangelist"? As the leader of a political faction ("Christian Coalition" (is that even still around?))?
I don't know the situation, but it appears that he, Chavez, is the problem. Unlike the war on "terrorism", which is basically on Islam"ists" (I have to throw that "ist" on there, b/c we don't want anyone to think Islam is the problem), the enemy is clearly identifiable. If there is the potential to go to war with them/him, then it makes a lot more sense to take him out and not shed a whole lot more blood than necessary.
Personally, I wish we would've done this in Iraq. Why is that not to be articulated?
My questions aren't rhetorical or facetious, but I don't see the big deal about his comments, other than the fact that the media is just looking for him to say something crazy, and really curious on why you think this.
Pat Robertson is in a very public role as a leader of the Christian Church. It is given to the state to bear the sword against evil, not to the church (which is one VERY key difference between Islam and Christianity).
It is irresponsible for a leader of the Church while speaking in that capacity to suggest assassination of anyone, especially when such action is illegal. Can you ever imagine the apostle Paul calling for the assassination of a foreign leader because he threatens the security of the Roman Empire? Can you imagine him calling for that in the context of his ministry? From the platform he enjoys as a minister of the gospel?
Can you see Jesus calling for the assassination of a foreign leader who threatened the security of the Roman Empire?
If Pat Robertson were a senator or a governor speaking in that capacity I would not have a problem with him making his case for assassination. If he were a news pundit on CNN making the argument, fine. If he were a shoe salesman persuading his co-workers or writing his congressman, ok. But in his role as a leader of the Church, and as a spokesman for Christians, and as a minister of the gospel, it's inexcusable.
Agree and disagree. One, I don't hear him calling for vigilante justice, but for our State to carry this out. I think this is legitimate for a Christian minister to do (Note: I'm not applying this principle to this particular case, but setting forth a basic framework.), even when addressing a foreign power.
Yes, technically it is "illegal", but we have been overthrowing regimes around the world via CIA operatives and no one blinks. Essentially we just declare war, take him out, and be done with it. Is Chavez a threat? If so, what should our State do? If he is a dictator and posses a threat to the US, should Christians not say anything about him?
I'm not sure I couldn't hear Paul or Jesus say something to this effect when commenting on current issues and addressing the responsibility of the State. Honestly, Rome ruled the world, but if there was a foreign power that saw Nero as a threat and Nero was going to attack, I can hear Paul say, "Take him out." I see this sort of action through the OT (my nephew named after one of the most famous incidents), believe Jesus is putting down His enemies, ruling with an iron rod (see Rev. 19 for what I believe we are currently a part of), and that includes striking down rulers, which includes ordinary means. No, I'm not confusing America w/ Israel. Also, I look historically at the King referring to the American Revolution as the "black robed war" due to the influence of the clergy and, being in Boston this past weekend, realized more how central the Church/pulpit was to the Revolution. Bohnhoeffer was in a plot to assassinate Hitler and I see it as a good thing, a righteous act, and this without State sanctioning.
No, I wouldn't say it if I was running a tv show or radio program, but a comment within the context of a "christian" news coverage, where he is commenting on current issues, doesn't seem evil to me, especially given the "policy" of our administration.
I think the wicked love death (Pr. 8:36) in the Bin Laden sense. He is also wisest enough not to hop into planes or strap a bomb to himself and then run and hide for a number of years. I do wish we had more Patrick Henry's in the US.
Yes, there is an aspect of dying in coming to Christ, mainly moral, which may include our physical life and belongings. The issue here, I believe, is the role of the State. As Greg said, following Paul, they bear the sword. The sword is a means of judgment (see Rom. 12-13 for the "turn the other cheek" for the Church, but the State being God's means of judgment), and if a dictator is posing a threat to the citizens of the US, then our civil magistrates have the DUTY to defend us, which can include people dying, assassination, kidnapping, camp x-ray, and the like. To suggest the State is to "turn the other cheek" is to turn God's law and gov't on its head.
My concern is Christ-likeness, which includes all kings and rulers to recognize his sovereignty over them, their citizens, and the land (Ps 2). I want the civil magistrates to demonstrate Christ-likeness as well, executing wrath on evil doers. Do most Christians believe Rev. 19 is "christ-likeness"? Our Jesus is too often a glassy-eyed hippie, that loves Earth Day and wheatgrass. Or, on the other end, he is some Southern boy that hates sodomites and movies.
Personally, I have a bigger problem with Pat's most recent comments seeking to distance himself from his previous comments, showing a lack of integrity. He lacks the boys to be of substance. Come on, PAT, "kidnapping"? Ridiculous!
7 comments:
Kind of funny, because I think I was just saying this the other day.
Amen!
Why should he keep his mouth shut? Should a Christian not think someone should be assassinated? Is it his position as a "televangelist"? As the leader of a political faction ("Christian Coalition" (is that even still around?))?
I don't know the situation, but it appears that he, Chavez, is the problem. Unlike the war on "terrorism", which is basically on Islam"ists" (I have to throw that "ist" on there, b/c we don't want anyone to think Islam is the problem), the enemy is clearly identifiable. If there is the potential to go to war with them/him, then it makes a lot more sense to take him out and not shed a whole lot more blood than necessary.
Personally, I wish we would've done this in Iraq. Why is that not to be articulated?
My questions aren't rhetorical or facetious, but I don't see the big deal about his comments, other than the fact that the media is just looking for him to say something crazy, and really curious on why you think this.
kdny
Pat Robertson is in a very public role as a leader of the Christian Church. It is given to the state to bear the sword against evil, not to the church (which is one VERY key difference between Islam and Christianity).
It is irresponsible for a leader of the Church while speaking in that capacity to suggest assassination of anyone, especially when such action is illegal. Can you ever imagine the apostle Paul calling for the assassination of a foreign leader because he threatens the security of the Roman Empire? Can you imagine him calling for that in the context of his ministry? From the platform he enjoys as a minister of the gospel?
Can you see Jesus calling for the assassination of a foreign leader who threatened the security of the Roman Empire?
If Pat Robertson were a senator or a governor speaking in that capacity I would not have a problem with him making his case for assassination. If he were a news pundit on CNN making the argument, fine. If he were a shoe salesman persuading his co-workers or writing his congressman, ok. But in his role as a leader of the Church, and as a spokesman for Christians, and as a minister of the gospel, it's inexcusable.
Agree and disagree. One, I don't hear him calling for vigilante justice, but for our State to carry this out. I think this is legitimate for a Christian minister to do (Note: I'm not applying this principle to this particular case, but setting forth a basic framework.), even when addressing a foreign power.
Yes, technically it is "illegal", but we have been overthrowing regimes around the world via CIA operatives and no one blinks. Essentially we just declare war, take him out, and be done with it. Is Chavez a threat? If so, what should our State do? If he is a dictator and posses a threat to the US, should Christians not say anything about him?
I'm not sure I couldn't hear Paul or Jesus say something to this effect when commenting on current issues and addressing the responsibility of the State. Honestly, Rome ruled the world, but if there was a foreign power that saw Nero as a threat and Nero was going to attack, I can hear Paul say, "Take him out." I see this sort of action through the OT (my nephew named after one of the most famous incidents), believe Jesus is putting down His enemies, ruling with an iron rod (see Rev. 19 for what I believe we are currently a part of), and that includes striking down rulers, which includes ordinary means. No, I'm not confusing America w/ Israel. Also, I look historically at the King referring to the American Revolution as the "black robed war" due to the influence of the clergy and, being in Boston this past weekend, realized more how central the Church/pulpit was to the Revolution. Bohnhoeffer was in a plot to assassinate Hitler and I see it as a good thing, a righteous act, and this without State sanctioning.
No, I wouldn't say it if I was running a tv show or radio program, but a comment within the context of a "christian" news coverage, where he is commenting on current issues, doesn't seem evil to me, especially given the "policy" of our administration.
Morgan,
I think the wicked love death (Pr. 8:36) in the Bin Laden sense. He is also wisest enough not to hop into planes or strap a bomb to himself and then run and hide for a number of years. I do wish we had more Patrick Henry's in the US.
Yes, there is an aspect of dying in coming to Christ, mainly moral, which may include our physical life and belongings. The issue here, I believe, is the role of the State. As Greg said, following Paul, they bear the sword. The sword is a means of judgment (see Rom. 12-13 for the "turn the other cheek" for the Church, but the State being God's means of judgment), and if a dictator is posing a threat to the citizens of the US, then our civil magistrates have the DUTY to defend us, which can include people dying, assassination, kidnapping, camp x-ray, and the like. To suggest the State is to "turn the other cheek" is to turn God's law and gov't on its head.
My concern is Christ-likeness, which includes all kings and rulers to recognize his sovereignty over them, their citizens, and the land (Ps 2). I want the civil magistrates to demonstrate Christ-likeness as well, executing wrath on evil doers. Do most Christians believe Rev. 19 is "christ-likeness"? Our Jesus is too often a glassy-eyed hippie, that loves Earth Day and wheatgrass. Or, on the other end, he is some Southern boy that hates sodomites and movies.
Personally, I have a bigger problem with Pat's most recent comments seeking to distance himself from his previous comments, showing a lack of integrity. He lacks the boys to be of substance. Come on, PAT, "kidnapping"? Ridiculous!
Well, now I'm not really sure what Pat said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/MTFH85487_2005-08-24_20-37-45_SCH362917.html
P.S. within blog comments, does anyone know how to turn that into a hyper-link?
Post a Comment