Isn't it possible for one man to vote for a quick death, another for a slow death, both having in mind "the good of the church?" The votes are not necessarily unto actual extinction. Both men could be "voting their conscience." The one voting for "slow death" (in this scenario) doesn't even think he's voting for death in the least, thereby justifying his participation; he thinks the other man IS voting for quick death, and faults him.
The one voting for a quick death (in this scenario) believes he is choosing martyrdom no matter what choice he makes, and he's been offered a choice between painful but quick, or slow and agonizing. He thinks the other man is naive, and faults him.
Maybe neither should fault the other, take his own position, and respect the other man's conscience.
Pr. Buchanan,
First, thank you for this post, as well as #31, which I did read attentively.
I admit I'm not quite clear the central intention of the post quoted. Since I'm the only one who mentioned voting and "the good of the church" I suppose it's related to mine, and perhaps you are perceiving a criticism in my writing of one's choice to vote a certain way, rather than another?
If it helps, though people know mine and the RPCNA stance on voting, it's rather the kind of thing I'm trying to keep away from. So, no intention from me to tell people how they should vote, or how they should not. I certainly don't intend to tell anyone in this thread that one choice of voting is more detrimental than another, or unto extinction. I don't really intend to debate Establishment doctrine either in this thread. Then again, writing clarity is an ongoing process for me.
The term "good of the church" isn't actually my phrase. It's a term used by a non-establishment brother of mine (not on PB) who says this is the ultimate criteria for voting.
My own central point, is that hardly any Christian (if any) in the US makes even the most basic political decision without concerns to its impact on the church, whatever else is said about separation of the two institutions. Election season tends to show even among those with a professed indifference to church/state relations, or even resistance to it, private Christians and pastors will quickly and openly associate their names with certain political figures and stances. For some of them (but not all), it is unthinkable that other Christians would not do the same. When that happens, it's pretty hard to see how one can be so bold and open about their political preferences, even citing the church's necessity, and yet say we are to act as though we as Christians should be leery of relations with the government. But again, not all in the non-establishment camp act this way, and I tend to think those persons are consistent.
And, Republicans are well in-tune with what the church really wants. Whatever else is said, if the Republicans offer the right positions they are guaranteed the church's vote. Sure the church isn't asking for money and countenancing, and many would think that awful, but there is an unspoken agreement between the church and Republicans what are the terms of their relationship. Which practically speaking isn't too far from a "covenant with Egypt."
I certainly shouldn't judge. Eight years ago I was rather indignant that people wouldn't vote for Romney, and I thought that Pres. Obama's re-election meant the coming of persecution.
As you said, church history is messy (the same as politics); and where people get involved, there's wood, hay, and stubble that will be consumed. So, fully agreed that even the most premier events in church history should not be praised as all or exclusively good; so long as the good is acknowledged. Same as it would it be wrong for someone with Establishment views to look at the political structure of America and not be grateful that despite its real defects (as I believe there to be), we still have something similar to the church in Constantine's time; opportunity to grow and develop in a particular way that many Christians have not been able to.
But if we're going to say that we need to maintain a clear separation of church and state, where one hardly talks to the other, and anything beyond that is an unauthorized covenanting, it needs to at least be acknowledged that those who profess that stance oftentimes make the covenant in other ways.
And even if the Establishment principle turned out to be unscriptural, and that there should be more distance than cooperation between church and state, I'd only advocate that the work of God done in these assemblies not be thrown under the bus, as though they were the work of the enemy.
