Nations have full authority to Kill, Lie, Steal as they see fit to act in the best interest of their populace. The rulers will be held to account by God of course, but they are not under the same rules as unequal individuals.

This is why nations can have armies and intelligence services.

Rahab was an asset to the Israeli intelligence service at that particular time, and was immune to individual standards of morality, as she was acting on behalf of the state.

I know some people seem to really want a pastor to them exactly what to do. I mean like down to what car they should buy. They seem to equate having strong opinions with being sure of one’s self, and well-studied. Warren, to me, just comes off kind of the opposite of this. He doesn’t seem stupid, he just seems laid back. He’s kind of the total opposite of John MacArthur.

The other worldview (call it postmodern if you like) sees a pastor who’s absolutely sure he’s right as arrogant. It doesn’t really matter what this pastor says, because these people will automatically dismiss it because of the way it’s presented. Someone like Rick Warren seems to be able to disarm these people to some extent.

If I were a cynical marketing major, I would see it like this. I would say it comes down to a generational thing. You have John MacArthur representing the Builders and people who think like that, Rick Warren who seems to get the Boomers, and Rob Bell who speaks to the Gen-Xers and youngers. Of course, speaking in generalities isn’t all that useful most of the time, but I think there is a bit of truth to it.

That quote:

I’m glad that my ministry from Jesus is to defend Jesus and the Truth, and not just some man.

The point seems totally missed by the person who stated it. “my ministry..” as opposed to the ministry we are called fo which is God’s ministry of reconciliation.

Good catch!
iggy

I’ve seen Richard Abanes doing the “defend Rick Warren” thing for a long time. I’m glad that my ministry from Jesus is to defend Jesus and the Truth, and not just some man.

This was written by someone named “Ken.” In particular, I really like Ken’s “I’m glad that my ministry” phraseology part.

Mike Corley left an interesting comment there. Whether you agree with his assessment of Warren or not, the ambiguity angle is interesting. I don’t feel like there was ambiguity in this particular case, but the concept is interesting:

Rick Warren never tells anyone to “outright” do anything. In other words his ambiguity is unbelievable. At best he gives half truths. As I have written before and shared on the air, why can’t someone as articulate, intelligent, educated and well known as Rick Warren preach the Gospel with total clarity? My only conclusion is that he chooses to be vague, broad and general.

I admit to not being a huge Warren fan which, in consideration, we shouldn’t really be fans of any minister. That’s a weird thing to do. One thing that drives me crazy is a sense of this ambiguity whenever I read something he’s written, or an interview he’s given.

On the other hand, I don’t get that same experience from Rob Bell, when others do. So, probably subjective.

Comment #12 over there is a little melodramatic.

Do I get to play?

I am skeptical also… as a pastor often I am skeptical of myself! LOL!

I am not a RW fan. I just do not see that much that is thrown at him is necessary or true. You might be surprised that I even think some of the debate against Lordship Salvation of those against Johnny Mac was a misrepresentation of him also…

Yet, I see that there are more issues with the theology of LS than PDL… at least PDL points that all people have a purpose and that is to live out God’s good and perfect will and purpose for their lives. I think that core message is sadly missing in most churches today and RW restored it. The issues I have is when programs replace the Holy Spirit and the “purpose” become “program”. I was talking to my wife once in a local restaurant and thought I recognized our waitress. I asked her which church she went to and it was a local PDL church… mind you this was in the midst of a discussion of programs versus Holy Spirit as I mentioned here. The girl went on to state, “They have a lot of great programs at _________ church.” I smiled and stated “Yes they do don’t they.” I laughed to my wife as it was as if God was making the point for me.

I am not against programs, but Christ Jesus must be the center or one’s life… in fact as I state, I literally see Him as our life. This means Jesus is more than my “Lord”. I see so many settle for less and in the sense of LS I see that as settling for doctrines over the very Life of Christ.

So, if I debate I only fight for the Life of Christ to be understood and taught.

To be fair, I have heard JM speak on this… as I have heard it taught in many PDL churches… but often it is negated then with a misunderstanding of the biblical teaching of “obedience”. They negate grace by teaching an obedience that is only works and not the total trusting in Christ Jesus for all things godly… they miss that true obedience is trusting in Christ’s obedience and not our own… for only Christ is and will be pleasing to the Father… and only His works are acceptable to the Father.

Both sides have their failings, yet both sides have a few good points… I will and have never stated that JM is all evil… I just have not had much fun with his followers who are quick to judge and slow to listen…

Be blessed,
iggy

Ten Jews are living in your basement. A Nazi knocks on your door and asks you point-blank “are any Jews living in your basement?” If you say yes, or anything else for that matter, everyone dies. The only chance for saving them is by saying one word, no. What do you do?

Kant said you had to say yes. I used to agree with his stance on this, but have only recently changed my mind. In other words, I used to think the New Testament supported some form of deontology, but now would say that it supports some version of virtue theory.

Just to go to the Hebrew context – the answer to give the Germans would certainly be ‘no’ in this case.

One function of sages/rabbis prior to 70 A.D. was to help people understand how to apply Torah to their lives – especially when weighing sins against each other.

Jesus’ classic example is in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Levite and the Priest (who both believed in Torah) chose not to become unclean by touching a half-dead body, but the Samaritan (whose holy book is also the Torah) touched the dying man and his wounds in order to save his life.

When Jesus rendered his opinion that the greatest command was to love God, and that the second was to love your neighbor, he was also rendering a ruling on how to weigh laws against each other.

Similar teaching from the same time period laid out the principle that, if you were faced with saving a life (your own or someone else’s), the only commands greater than preserving this life were to love God (by not blaspheming Him or worshiping other Gods) and to love your neighbor (by not committing a different murder and by not committing sexual sin).

So, in this case, ‘bearing false witness’, you have two neighbors:
1) The one (or ten) whose life you are protecting
2) The one who wants to know if there are Jews in your home.

You have the choice of committing one of two sins:
1) Being complicit to the murder of one neighbor
2) Lying to the other neighbor

Both of these sins are sins against men and fall under “love your neighbor as yourself”. Therefore, because the preservation of life is more important than your own personal holiness (in not lying), the correct answer would be to lie to the German soldier.