one bb, indivisible

[Elizabeth H]

one thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that nearly all of the founding fathers (with a few minor exceptions) were wealthy, slave-owning, landholders. the writers of the Constitution stood to profit hugely by the establishment of a strong federal government independent of England. in other words, they had a direct economic interest. which is not bad, per se. but it should be noted that there were definitely groups of people NOT represented in the Constitutional Convention. primarily: women, men without property, indentured servants and of course, slaves.

i just think it's silly to stoke up the fires of Our Great City on a Hill when many of the motivating factors were just plain, old-fashioned "show me the money."

that being said, i do not believe America was founded on a false premise. in fact, i love this beautiful country and thank God for the freedom we enjoy today. i just think we have to be careful about being idealistic/pessimistic on either side.

[Chuck Miller]

Bystander,

YOU WROTE:  Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 

Scripture teaches that God both raises and brings down kings and nations.  That being the case, the United States is legitimate, even more so than most other nations.

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not saying that the U. S, isn’t “legitimate.”  What I am saying in my complete dissertation, is that the there is no scriptural basis for Christians to form a government outside of that which Christ instituted when He founded His church.

YOU WROTE:  I submit that the US was founded on a true premise, as far as any secular nation goes.  The premise of Liberty does not inhibit true fellowship and unity in Christ in any way, neither does it create it.  It is not the job of states and governments to further the Kingdom of God!  Also, the Gospel is not fettered by governments, but it can be maligned on account of the testimony of those who supposedly preach it.

MY RESPONSE:  Well said. 

YOU WROTE:  As to the founders not recognizing that Christ had already established that which they were seeking, I must disagree with the very premise of that statement.  Christ in no way established an earthly nation or kingdom, which was the very thing the founders sought to do. 

MY RESPONSE:  Christ’s kingdom was established when He rose from the dead and sat down on His throne in the heavenlies.  We who have received Him as our Savior also receive Him as our King and we are citizens of that kingdom.  We are merely aliens and strangers in whatever country we reside on this earth.  He is coming again in judgement to establish that kingdom on earth.  We eagerly await that day.  That earthly kingdom is expressed (or should be expressed) in the church where He is to govern in absentia (physically) until He returns. 

YOU WROTE:  Perhaps I need to read your entire dissertation, but from what you posted it seems that you lament the fact that many in the US mistakenly believe it to be a Christian nation, when it is in fact a secular one. 

MY RESPONSE:  True, but I lament even more, the fact that Christians believe they can put their trust in men, believers or unbelievers, to bring about change in government and in the world.  Only should the hearts of men turn back to God, would we see any meaningful change .


YOU WROTE:  I think the problem here lies more with peoples' mistaken ideas about what the Church is,  and how this leads them to the idea that a secular nation can in any way be Christian.

RESPONSE:  Amen!

YOU WROTE:  As a Christian, I have no problem doing an honest days work in a secular nation, whether that be farming, hammering nails, or administrating civil affairs.  On the flipside, as a Christian, I do have a problem doing an honest days' secular work in the Church!  If we confuse the two, all manner of strange ideas and consequences come
about.

Bystander

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean by “doing an honest day’s secular work in the church,” but I certainly agree with you about doing work in a secular nation.  Being a Christian does not preclude my working and prospering while obeying the laws of whatever country in which I reside - except any which would violate my conscience before God.  Nor does it negate any right to enjoy the liberties and privileges which that country affords me as one of its citizens.  We are in the world, but not of it, and as such, we are to live differently than the unbeliever, yet always reaching out to them to invite them into the joy of citizenship in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.  And our message to those who are already citizens should be:  “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

God bless,

Chuck

[bystander]

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean by “doing an honest day’s secular work in the church,” but I certainly agree with you about doing work in a secular nation.  Being a Christian does not preclude my working and prospering while obeying the laws of whatever country in which I reside - except any which would violate my conscience before God.  Nor does it negate any right to enjoy the liberties and privileges which that country affords me as one of its citizens.  We are in the world, but not of it, and as such, we are to live differently than the unbeliever, yet always reaching out to them to invite them into the joy of citizenship in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.  And our message to those who are already citizens should be:  “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

God bless,

Chuck

what I mean is by "secular work," would be along the lines of administering fundraising for a political campaign, or something along those lines.

[Oscar]

Chuck,

I think I see what you are saying now.  (correct me if I still don't get it)  You said:

MY RESPONSE:  Christ’s kingdom was established when He rose from the dead and sat down on His throne in the heavenlies.  We who have received Him as our Savior also receive Him as our King and we are citizens of that kingdom.  We are merely aliens and strangers in whatever country we reside on this earth.  He is coming again in judgement to establish that kingdom on earth.  We eagerly await that day.  That earthly kingdom is expressed (or should be expressed) in the church where He is to govern in absentia (physically) until He returns.  

Regarding our status as aliens and strangers.  It seems to me that you have a very different understanding of this phrase than most Christians I have ever heard discussing it.  Most folks see this as teaching that we do not settle our final hope on this world or the things in it.  We live in the world and, as the church which is His body, express the kingdom of God through our lives and labors.  Most, however, don't see this as a prohibition on participating in the national communities in which we live.  His kingdom is, after all, not of this world.

If Christians refuse to participate in Government, for example, that means that no godly influence will be brought to bear on the society at large.  I can't say that I see that as a very good idea.  Christians were deeply involved in the abolition of slavery, and the outlawing of prostitution, drugs, and pornography.  As Christians have lost influence in our society in recent decades, some of these evils have are being permitted again.  

In the state I live in, we have the initiative process.  We can amend the state constitution by petitions leading to a state wide ballot.  What should we do if a ballot measure lowers the age of consent for sexual relations to 8 years old?  (This has actually been publicly advocated!)  Should Christians just sit on their hands and do nothing?  Just let the perverts get their hands on little kids?  Or should we organize the votes to defeat it?

I may be wrong, but somewhere I heard that you spend time in Costa Rica.  Do you have a U.S. passport?  If you do, how does that fit in with your ideas on what it means to be a "pilgrim and exile?"

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Chuck Miller]

[comntinued from above]

YOU WROTE:  They were told to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's, signifying that there are two separate things going on here: Church and State.
Is your point that if we say our country is founded on Christian principles that the country would look different? And that it should look like and be run like a church is? Is that really possible? What is the responsibility and how far is the reach of a leader who calls himself a Christian?

MY RESPONSE:  My point is that we have not been instructed to “run” any country.  We have been instructed as to how we are to conduct ourselves in the church.  One such instruction is that there are to be no divisions in His body (1 Cor 1:10),  yet we find that there are over 1000 denominations in this country.  If we believers haven’t learned how to live in unity in the church, why would we expect that we would to be able to form “a more perfect union” with unbelievers?
Since Jesus said that we are not to make vows (Mat 5:33-37) how can a Christian take an oath of office to defend laws that are contrary to Jesus’ command?

YOU WROTE:  I agree with what bystander, and Tom Maddeletor, said but I'm interested in reading your entire paper. Are you arguing words here, trying to prove that the US of A isn't founded on Christian principles, or presenting priniciples that can actually be worked out in a Christian nation?

MY RESPONSE:  Both.  But these principles, like Christ’s kingdom, transcend national borders. They apply wherever we reside and don’t change when we cross borders.  They are probably “worked out” more scriptural in China and in other countries where the church has to operate secretly because of persecution.  But don‘t feel sorry for them, envy them, for their reward in heaven is great. 

YOU WROTE:  Would you consider posting something everyday for us to read? We will show interest in your posts by responding the same day in order to keep Tom from deleting them due to lack of interest.

MY RESPONSE:  I am not a prolific writer and try to limit myself to writing to when the Lord gives me a burden to do so.  I'll gladly respond to any post directed to me, or answer any questions, but even now I have several posts to which I haven’t yet responded.  I will be responding to Elizabeth, Tom and Bystander as I have time in the next couple of days.  I appreciate good Christian dialogue and find that it either strengthens my convictions or causes me to change them.

In His service,   Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Moonflower,

YOU WROTE:  Chuck, I think most people do not claim that the US is a Christian country anymore, except in comparison to countries where the dominant religious beliefs are Buddhist, Communist, Islam, Jewish, etc. There are more Christians here than any other country and have been for some time.

MY RESPONSE:  The word “Christian”  seems to have lost its true meaning even amongst “Evangelicals.”  This became obvious in the late 1990’s when a group of Evangelicals corroborated with a group of prominent Catholics in publishing  a document  “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” and a couple of years later they followed up with “The God of Salvation.” Both documents were written in an attempt to unite Catholics and Evangelicals in a socio/spiritual alliance to address social and political problems. The distinctive feature that these documents revealed was that these Evangelicals accepted Catholicism as a Christian church.  In many polls today, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are counted among Christians. 

YOU WROTE:  We have already heard that the early unifying factor of the early USA was hatred for the "taxation without representation", and not religious freedom. But to say that that was the only issue that they were interested in is unfair to the large population who came here and thrived under the religious freedom, with their families intact, that they did not have in their mother countries.

MY RESPONSE:  You are correct and I don’t mean to imply that there were not those who came for that reason.  But my point is, that there was no need for them to try to establish either a secular or a religious government. 

YOU WROTE:  One of the issues in Christianity is "sin". The ten commandments tell us what it is and the founding fathers realized this when they pasted the commandments in various places. I don't think you are saying that this was bogus on their part and just a political ploy to appeal to the masses of indigent immigrants who came for religious freedom or the mere well-being of their families? 

MY RESPONSE: You are correct; that is not what I’m saying.  We are instructed to be ambassadors for Christ.   That means that we are to represent Christ in the environment in which we abide, our neighborhood, our job, our city, etc…We are to take our instruction about how to be ambassadors for Christ from the word.  Many Christians disregard that instruction and do whatever they think is expedient without regard for the purpose and intent of the one whom they claim to be serving.  That is not the role of an ambassador.


YOU WROTE:  There is no true freedom until sin is recognized for what it is. Women and children, although they may be victims, have been protected here unlike in countries who have never known or turned from Christ. It's the goodness of God recognized by these founding fathers.

MY RESPONSE: Better yet, there  is no "true" freedom, except as found in Christ.   
I’m  not implying that nothing good came out of the founding of this country.  What I am saying is that our allegiance to Christ must supercede our allegiance to any country.  We can’t serve two masters.  Those who place themselves under oath to uphold and enforce laws that oppose God’s laws will eventually be forced to choose between the two.   It is foolhardy to place oneself in that position.

YOU WROTE:  If our country was to be run like the old testament "church", we would need to kill most of the people who are in prisons now, imprison many who aren't, and leave the rest of them out in the cold.  But I don't think that was Christ's message to the NT Christians.

MY RESPONSE:  Nor do I.  Have you ever noticed that there are no provisions for “prisons” in Mosaic or Davidic Law ?  The most severe punishment was death.  The next most severe was to be “cast out.”   The most severe discipline in the church is to be “cast out.”   And in the church there is no provision for a death penalty.   Also, we are told that we are not to judge those outside the church (1 Cor  5:12-13). 

[continued below]

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

YOU WROTE:  In the state I live in, we have the initiative process.  We can amend the state constitution by petitions leading to a state wide ballot.  What should we do if a ballot measure lowers the age of consent for sexual relations to 8 years old?  (This has actually been publicly advocated!)  Should Christians just sit on their hands and do nothing?  Just let the perverts get their hands on little kids?  Or should we organize the votes to defeat it?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

MY RESPONSE:  I believe there are several things we have to consider in regard to the laws of the country in which we live. 

Is this a bad law for the community in which I live?
Am I obligated to obey this law?
Will it violate my conscience before God if I obey this law?

Let’s take a look at Roe v Wade in this prospective.
Certainly, I believe it is a bad law for the country, so, I will speak out against it.   But this law is not imposed upon us, so no one is forced to have an abortion - just as I am not forced to look at pornography on the internet, or go to “R” rated movies.
In some Asian countries, there is a different situation in regard to bearing children.  Parents are forbidden , or discouraged from having more than one child, or they may even be forced to abort a second pregnancy.  In such cases,  a Christian should refuse to obey such a law, even if it means being ostracized or even imprisoned.  This has happened in Mainland China.

I believe we have a God-given right to appeal or petition against bad laws, or ones which would force me to violate my conscience before God if I were to obey them.

If our appeal is denied, we have to consider whether it will personally effect my walk with the Lord.  And remember, Tom, we’re told that we are not to judge those “outside the church.” (1 Cor 12-13).  So, if a mother wants to abort her child, I would certainly try to dissuade her.   But once she has done so, I am to treat her as I would any other believer who needs Jesus Christ as their Redeemer. 

So, in the case of the petition concerning the amendment you mentioned, Tom, I would apply the same principles. 

I was struck by the number of Christians who protested about the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl half-time entertainment show last year.  My question is “Why would a Christian have been watching such the show to begin with, when it was obviously a degrading exhibition from the very beginning.  And I don’t think it was necessary or wise for Christians to express their outrage.  We very often come across as “bible thumping” do-gooders who want to impose our morality upon everyone else. I am glad to be able to say that I didn’t watch any of it. 

God bless, 

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Tom, 

YOU WROTE: Chuck, I think I see what you are saying now.  (correct me if I still don't get it)  You said:
“Christ’s kingdom was established when He rose from the dead and sat down on His throne in the heavenlies.  We who have received Him as our Savior also receive Him as our King and we are citizens of that kingdom.  We are merely aliens and strangers in whatever country we reside on this earth.  He is coming again in judgement to establish that kingdom on earth.  We eagerly await that day.  That earthly kingdom is expressed (or should be expressed) in the church where He is to govern in absentia (physically) until He returns “
YOU CONTINUE:  Chuck, regarding our status as aliens and strangers.  It seems to me that you have a very different understanding of this phrase than most Christians I have ever heard discussing it.  Most folks see this as teaching that we do not settle our final hope on this world or the things in it.  We live in the world and, as the church which is His body, express the kingdom of God through our lives and labors.  Most, however, don't see this as a prohibition on participating in the national communities in which we live.  His kingdom is, after all, not of this world.]

MY RESPONSE:  Neither do I see our status as aliens and strangers as prohibiting us from participating in the communities in which we live.  We are told that we are ambassadors -  not monks or hermits. But, I don’t believe we can ignore Jesus command about making vows ( Matt 5:33-37) and James reiteration of that command (James 5:12).  Therefore I don’t believe that a Christian should run for, or accept an appointment to any office whereby he/she would have to take an oath (or affirm) that he/she would have to uphold or enforce laws which are in opposition to God’s laws. We cannot serve two masters, for we will inevitably be confronted with having to make a choice as to which one we are going to obey.
An ambassador is appointed to convey the will and policies of the one whom he serves. When he chooses to ignore that instruction, and act in a manner that he decides is more expedient for accomplishing his boss’s purposes, then, he is not fit to serve.

YOU WROTE:  If Christians refuse to participate in Government, for example, that means that no godly influence will be brought to bear on the society at large.  I can't say that I see that as a very good idea.  Christians were deeply involved in the abolition of slavery, and the outlawing of prostitution, drugs, and pornography.  As Christians have lost influence in our society in recent decades, some of these evils have are being permitted again. 

MY RESPONSE:  I believe our “godly influence” should come from living lives that individually and corporately express the principles set forth in the word.  A good example of a properly functioning church is found in Acts 2:43-47 and Acts 4:32-35.  This is the type of unity that should be seen in the church today, but instead, we have Christ’s church divided into over a thousand denominations. We have lost our influence in our society because there is very little to distinguish between ourselves and themselves.  Divorce, adultery, rebellious children, etc, etc, etc are just as common amongst Christians as amongst unbelievers. 
What “godly influence “ is effected, for instance, when Christians vociferously demonstrate in front of a courthouse to protest the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments?   Consider the “godly influence” that Betsy Ten Boom had upon her fellow prisoners and even the cruel guards in a Nazi concentration Camp.  Consider the ”godly  influence” that a young girl in a school in Columbine, Colorado had upon her classmates and a watching world, and was shot because she refused to deny her God.

[continue below]

[bystander]

[continued from above]

Let’s take a look at Roe v Wade in this prospective.
Certainly, I believe it is a bad law for the country, so, I will speak out against it.   But this law is not imposed upon us, so no one is forced to have an abortion - just as I am not forced to look at pornography on the internet, or go to “R” rated movies.
In some Asian countries, there is a different situation in regard to bearing children.  Parents are forbidden , or discouraged from having more than one child, or they may even be forced to abort a second pregnancy.  In such cases,  a Christian should refuse to obey such a law, even if it means being ostracized or even imprisoned.  This has happened in Mainland China.

I believe we have a God-given right to appeal or petition against bad laws, or ones which would force me to violate my conscience before God if I were to obey them.


Chuck

Therefore I don’t believe that a Christian should run for, or accept an appointment to any office whereby he/she would have to take an oath (or affirm) that he/she would have to uphold or enforce laws which are in opposition to God’s laws. We cannot serve two masters, for we will inevitably be confronted with having to make a choice as to which one we are going to obey.
An ambassador is appointed to convey the will and policies of the one whom he serves. When he chooses to ignore that instruction, and act in a manner that he decides is more expedient for accomplishing his boss’s purposes, then, he is not fit to serve.

There is no oath a Christian can take that is more binding that saying, "Yes." Unless I am mistaken, when we say yes to something, we are expected to faithfully perform what we said we would do, barring unforseen/extraordinary circumstances.  I don't see how holding office is any different than agreeing to help a friend paint a house in that sense. 

For example, if I were mayor, I could administrate the cities business fairly, faithfully, and with energy and good will.  There would be no problem at all doing this, unless I was asked to participate is some shady business, in which case I would merely refuse.  I might also choose to committ political suicide(or not) by voting against having Mardi Gras, or a Gay Pride event.

On the other hand, if I tell a friend "yes" regarding painting his house, only to find out that he is selling drugs out of the house, I am not bound to perform my vow, at least in my mind.

That brings up the abortion issue.  In keeping with the stand you seem to be stating, why do you pay taxes?  Surely you know some of your tax dollars are being used to abort babies?  Why do you not refuse to obey such a law?

Furthermore, if you view  PG rated movie, that is made by the same studio, or an affiliate of the same studio that produced the R rated movie, are you not promoting the same? The stranger/pilgrim thing can get strange indeed!   I have several thoughts on how to apply wisdom to this idea, but I would like to hear your thoughts first.

[Chuck Miller]

Elizabeth:

YOU WROTE:  One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that nearly all of the founding fathers (with a few minor exceptions) were wealthy, slave-owning, landholders. the writers of the Constitution stood to profit hugely by the establishment of a strong federal government independent of England.  In other words, they had a direct economic interest. which is not bad, per se, but it should be noted that there were definitely groups of people NOT represented in the Constitutional Convention. primarily: women, men without property, indentured servants and of course, slaves.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, Elizabeth we have to be pretty naïve to imagine that none of these Founding Fathers had any monetary interests in seeing a new country established in which they could define slaves as “property,” and not to be included among those creatures whom God had endowed with certain "inalienable rights." Without speculating on their motives, it is inconceivable to me that Christian men could designate other human beings as "property."   

YOU WROTE: I just think it's silly to stoke up the fires of Our Great City on a Hill when many of the motivating factors were just plain, old-fashioned "show me the money."

MY RESPONSE:  I can’t disagree because I think you may be right.  Yet I believe some of these men were truly sincere in their effort to try to build a better nation. 

YOU WROTE:  that being said, I do not believe America was founded on a false premise. in fact, I love this beautiful country and thank God for the freedom we enjoy today. I just think we have to be careful about being idealistic/pessimistic on either side.

Elizabeth

MY RESPONSE:  It would be too lengthy to try to write out my reasoning on a BB post. I’ve spelled out my reasons very thoroughly in my complete article. (which no one seems to have a desire to read).  That’s not a complaint - just a statement of fact.
I too enjoy the “freedom” we have in this country, Elizabeth,  but I don’t labor under any illusion that we are a nation “under God.”  Many would call me a pessimist, whereas I prefer to think of myself as a realist.  You’ve heard the cliché - The pessimist says “The glass is half empty,”  but the optimist says, “The glass is half full.”  Well I like to add - The realist says,  “I really don’t care to philosophize whether the glass is half- full or half- empty -  I just know I‘m thirsty and even a half glass of water is going to taste real good.” 
And I guess I would also say I’m idealistic in the sense of one of Merriam/Webster’s definitions -  “the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence.“  I believe the word of God is superbly paradoxical in that it is pragmatic yet idealistic.   Our problem is that, quite often, we just don’t take God at His Word, and we see it as being idealistic only.

God bless,

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

So much for illegal activity,  But what if you found out that your unsaved friend was engaged in some immoral activities? For instance, watched “R” rated movies?  Or that he condoned abortion?   Or that he buys Playboy magazine?  Or he was having an affair? 

Here, I believe is where Paul’s exhortation applies in regard to our not judging unbelievers. 

I had a boss for whom  I worked, and though he was not a Christian, he was well aware that I was, since I had witnessed to him  shortly after he had become the Director of the Company.  And even though he didn’t become a Christian,  we developed a close friendship.  He asked me to lunch one day, and broke down and confessed to having had an affair.  His wife had found out about it and was suing for divorce.  He was devastated and needed a friend to confide in.  I acknowledged that he had been foolish, but refrained from condemning him.  Inasmuch as reconciliation was deemed impossible, the divorce was soon finalized.  I didn’t have any misgivings about him marrying another woman several years later and I attended their wedding.   Now, it would be great to be able to say that he eventually came to know the Lord, but to date, I have no such information.  So, if you’re wondering what is the point of this little tale, I’ll  tell you.  Because I didn’t judge him, I believe he has a greater respect for my beliefs, and I would like to believe he saw something of value in my life, and in our relationship that might eventually bear fruit for Christ.  I pray for him.

Well, this is a pretty long-winded response to your question, but I hope it shows you where I am coming from.
 
YOU WROTE:  That brings up the abortion issue.  In keeping with the stand you seem to be stating, why do you pay taxes?  Surely you know some of your tax dollars are being used to abort babies?  Why do you not refuse to obey such a law?

MY RESPONSE:   Because we are told to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (Matt 22:21). Jesus paid the tax even though some of it was undoubtedly going to be used for ungodly purposes.  As I stated in a previous post, we are to obey the laws of the country in which we are residing, unless doing so would violate our conscience before God.   

YOU WROTE:  Furthermore, if you view  PG rated movie, that is made by the same studio, or an affiliate of the same studio that produced the R rated movie, are you not promoting the same? The stranger/pilgrim thing can get strange indeed!   I have several thoughts on how to apply wisdom to this idea, but I would like to hear your thoughts first.

MY RESPONSE:  If we are to boycott every company that engages in, or supports immoral activities, we would have to go out of the world.  For instance, you would be hard pressed to find a consumer oriented corporation today that does not contribute to, or at least target their marketing strategy toward, the Gay and Lesbian segment of our society.  I might refrain from patronizing a company if I become aware of their doing so, but that doesn’t necessitate my searching for a snake under every rock.  It would be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to discover all of the companies who condone or actually engage in immoral activities.

In the case of movie produces, I feel I might be able to make at least a slight impact by patronizing the studio’s “G” movies and avoiding the “R”s.  I subscribe to “Clean Films,” where movies are edited for language, nudity, or extreme violence.  The major studios have opposed the company’s editing their films, but to date, have been unsuccessful in preventing them from doing so..  Hopefully, ”Clean Films “ success might send a message to producers that there is a growing market for such movies. 

I‘m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

In His service,

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

Bystander,

YOU WROTE:  There is no oath a Christian can take that is more binding that saying, "Yes." Unless I am mistaken, when we say yes to something, we are expected to faithfully perform what we said we would do, barring unforseen/extraordinary circumstances.  I don't see how holding office is any different than agreeing to help a friend paint a house in that sense.
 
MY RESPONSE:   Certainly, a Christian’s word or promise  should  be his/her bond,  but I don’t believe that is the only object of Jesus’ command in Matthew 5:34-37.  Because Jesus was cognizant of our sin nature, He knew that we would be prone to breaking vows or oaths that we might make.  Consider the high percentage of well intended wedding vows that are broken every day and the unfulfilled promises of parents, children, employers, and politicians and you will understand Jesus’ foresight.  So, I view Jesus‘ admonition as a safeguard against making vows that, in weakness, we would not keep.  (I.e., The vow of Peter and the other disciple’s to Jesus to not deny Him)(Mathew 26:35).

And, I also view Jesus’ imperative of Matthew 5 as  referring to our responses  to  interrogatives,  i.e. “Did you take the money?”, “Are you telling the truth?” etc..  James, in reiterating Jesus‘ command wrote: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment” (James 5:12).  I believe that what James is conveying is that as Christians, our integrity should be above reproach, therefore  it is superfluous to reinforce a yes or no reply with an oath.  I’m reminded of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”  wherein Gertrude, in response to the play-Queen's repetitive statements of loyalty to, and love for, her first husband, observed - “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.“

However, we know that in the case of an elected or appointed official, almost all are obligated to take an oath of office, whereby they must swear (or affirm) that they will endeavor to uphold the laws of the state.  Inasmuch as current laws or future laws might run counter to God’s law, we can recognize the pitfall this can present for a Christian, so I also view this command as prohibiting a Christian from taking such an oath - or running for an office where one is required 

YOU WROTE:  For example, if I were mayor, I could administrate the cities business fairly, faithfully, and with energy and good will.  There would be no problem at all doing this, unless I was asked to participate is some shady business, in which case I would merely refuse.  I might also choose to committ political suicide(or not) by voting against having Mardi Gras, or a Gay Pride event.

MY RESPONSE:  Yes, you  probably would be committing political suicide.  Having served for a short time as a County Assessor in Nebraska, I found that even at a that low level of government,  there was political chicanery and dishonest practices.  I thought  I could make a difference, but soon found that it was too difficult to try to buck the system.  I resigned after serving just about one year of my four year term.
Perhaps you would fare better, but do you really suppose that they would allow you to forego the oath of office?   

YOU WROTE:  On the other hand, if I tell a friend "yes" regarding painting his house, only to find out that he is selling drugs out of the house, I am not bound to perform my vow, at least in my mind.

MY RESPONSE.  .  I’m assuming, of course, that you friend is an unbeliever. For if he were a believer, you would be obligated to confront him in accordance with Matthew 18:15. 

If he were an unbeliever, we have a different situation.  Since he is breaking the law, I would confront him and say something like “Jack, I know you are dealing in drugs from your house and therefore, you put me in a very uncomfortable position.  Since I consider you to be my friend, I would like to discuss this with you and find out why you would jeopardize your life, your family (if he has one), our friendship and your future.  I would have to assume that it’s something that you would like to quit, but maybe haven’t been able to figure out a way to do so.  I’d like to help you in any way I can.  I myself was trapped into a bad situation many years ago and I found a way out through Jesus Christ.  You can too.  If you’re not interested in discussing it, I’ll leave you alone, but then I would ask you to release me from my promise to paint your house.  But if you do want to talk, let’s get together tomorrow and I’ll bring along my brushes and we can talk while I throw some paint on your house.”

[continued below]

[moonflower2]

MY RESPONSE:  It would be too lengthy to try to write out my reasoning on a BB post. I’ve spelled out my reasons very thoroughly in my complete article. (which no one seems to have a desire to read). 
God bless,

Chuck

Red added by me. If you remember, I was the one who originally asked if you could post the entire paper on this BB. You offered to send it to Tom, but would you consider sending it to me.? I'd like to read it. I'll give you my address or a fax number if you would rather fax it.

Moonflower2

[Chuck Miller]

Monnflower,

I stand corrected.  If you will send me your address to chuckmiller888@yahoo.com, I'll gladly send you a copy. 

Chuck

[Elizabeth H]

Moonflower2

Is there a difference between Moonflower & Moonflower2?