Generally speaking, if we removed men from ALL positions of power and decision making and got rid of religion, 90 percent of the planet’s problems would just disappear.
First, did Don Lemon - or any of the protestors - approach the pastor in private, first, to hear his reasoning for what he was doing that was so objectionable? Had they done so, they would have quickly realized that this pastor was not an ICE agent - and so even insofar as being an officer of the law is itself an inherent evil, they would have been confronting the wrong person.
Second, did Don Lemon - or any of the protestors - request to meet with him with two or three other brothers and sisters in order to talk through the concerns they had about simply being involved in a government office? Was there any evidence that the pastor on the board had been directly involved in anything that was illegal or morally objectionable in an agency that has existed and operated legally and without broad objection right through the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations?
Third, Matthew 18 is not about simply bursting into a congregation of which you have no part and then shutting it down. If that were so, we would relaunch the religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, where the objections go much deeper than incidental social issues to ones of eternal, salvational significance. The bringing before the congregation is done by the congregation in a way done "decently and in order" for the sake of "restoring such a one in a spirit of gentleness"; it is not done for the sake of the public even; it is done by the church for the sake of the church.
There is no evidence that the elder in that church had acted in a way that was more out of line than any other officer of the law operating in the normal course of his or her duties. He just happens to serve in a department that you find objectionable, and that is not the same as being caught in an act of sin. Even Christ had no objections to the Roman soldiers who followed him continuing to be Roman soldiers; John the Baptist admonition's only that they not individually use their position to oppress others.
This is not a matter of courts regulating religious speech; it is a matter of courts guaranteeing the continued worship of God in a free manner, perfectly in accord with the teaching of Romans 13: 1-7
You are making assumptions about facts, not in evidence. So you're suggesting that the court court have a hearing to decide whether Church discipline was followed. Keep in mind, Matthew 18 has various different ways of interpretation. Depending on the denomination. A judicial court is not the place for religious arguments.
Well, to be clear, your column actually makes the issue one of Matthew 18. It is not, in all honesty.
This is a civil matter, in which a peaceful gathering - a gathering which some may find objectionable, but which is protected by the first amendment - was disrupted by outsiders - people who are not part of the church, have not been part of the church, nor ever before pretended to be part of that church. That is the matter that the court is taking up: does disruption violate the FACE act or not?
As to the point of Matthew 18, we should not pretend that the protestors were in any way following it., the interpretation of the passage is fairly straightforward:
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d]
17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (NIV)
I know this because that is exactly how you interpreted it.
"Jesus didn’t say, “If your brother trespasses against you, maybe send him a text.”
He didn’t say, “File a complaint with HR.”
He didn’t say, “Tweet about it and hope for the best.”
He said:
1. Go to him privately.
2. If that fails, bring witnesses.
3. If that fails, bring it before the church."
Had they done exactly what you said in following Matthew 18, they would first have had the private conversation with the brother that they thought was sinning. At that point, they might have been able to come to an understanding: maybe he would listen to them and seen that being a part of ICE was sinful, or, perhaps, maybe they would listen to him and see his point that he is enforcing laws on the books - and maybe wasn't even involved in the particular things they are protesting. Maybe, by listening, the two sides could have come to an understanding of each other, disagreements and all, and something better would come out of it.
At the least, they would have found the right guy to protest - not the man who is simply caring for his flock from the pulpit and otherwise. They did not even know who the man was that they were upset about.
If your claim is that Don Lemon and others were following Christ's command in disrupting the church service, and
If you are pointing to this passage from Matthew 18, in which Jesus says this is the first step,
Then you are not really reading what Jesus said.
That's what I mean when I say your reasoning is specious:
1) You are ignoring the actual nature of the case, which is a civil case deciding civil matters under federal civil law - a law that constrains protest and has not yet been ruled unconstitutional.
2) You are attempting to paint this riot as though it were the fulfillment of a Scriptural command, when, by your own interpretation, it fails to be so, by your own explication of the passage.
Generally speaking, if we removed men from ALL positions of power and decision making and got rid of religion, 90 percent of the planet’s problems would just disappear.
This is a specious argument from the outset.
First, did Don Lemon - or any of the protestors - approach the pastor in private, first, to hear his reasoning for what he was doing that was so objectionable? Had they done so, they would have quickly realized that this pastor was not an ICE agent - and so even insofar as being an officer of the law is itself an inherent evil, they would have been confronting the wrong person.
Second, did Don Lemon - or any of the protestors - request to meet with him with two or three other brothers and sisters in order to talk through the concerns they had about simply being involved in a government office? Was there any evidence that the pastor on the board had been directly involved in anything that was illegal or morally objectionable in an agency that has existed and operated legally and without broad objection right through the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations?
Third, Matthew 18 is not about simply bursting into a congregation of which you have no part and then shutting it down. If that were so, we would relaunch the religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, where the objections go much deeper than incidental social issues to ones of eternal, salvational significance. The bringing before the congregation is done by the congregation in a way done "decently and in order" for the sake of "restoring such a one in a spirit of gentleness"; it is not done for the sake of the public even; it is done by the church for the sake of the church.
There is no evidence that the elder in that church had acted in a way that was more out of line than any other officer of the law operating in the normal course of his or her duties. He just happens to serve in a department that you find objectionable, and that is not the same as being caught in an act of sin. Even Christ had no objections to the Roman soldiers who followed him continuing to be Roman soldiers; John the Baptist admonition's only that they not individually use their position to oppress others.
This is not a matter of courts regulating religious speech; it is a matter of courts guaranteeing the continued worship of God in a free manner, perfectly in accord with the teaching of Romans 13: 1-7
You are making assumptions about facts, not in evidence. So you're suggesting that the court court have a hearing to decide whether Church discipline was followed. Keep in mind, Matthew 18 has various different ways of interpretation. Depending on the denomination. A judicial court is not the place for religious arguments.
Well, to be clear, your column actually makes the issue one of Matthew 18. It is not, in all honesty.
This is a civil matter, in which a peaceful gathering - a gathering which some may find objectionable, but which is protected by the first amendment - was disrupted by outsiders - people who are not part of the church, have not been part of the church, nor ever before pretended to be part of that church. That is the matter that the court is taking up: does disruption violate the FACE act or not?
As to the point of Matthew 18, we should not pretend that the protestors were in any way following it., the interpretation of the passage is fairly straightforward:
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d]
17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (NIV)
I know this because that is exactly how you interpreted it.
"Jesus didn’t say, “If your brother trespasses against you, maybe send him a text.”
He didn’t say, “File a complaint with HR.”
He didn’t say, “Tweet about it and hope for the best.”
He said:
1. Go to him privately.
2. If that fails, bring witnesses.
3. If that fails, bring it before the church."
Had they done exactly what you said in following Matthew 18, they would first have had the private conversation with the brother that they thought was sinning. At that point, they might have been able to come to an understanding: maybe he would listen to them and seen that being a part of ICE was sinful, or, perhaps, maybe they would listen to him and see his point that he is enforcing laws on the books - and maybe wasn't even involved in the particular things they are protesting. Maybe, by listening, the two sides could have come to an understanding of each other, disagreements and all, and something better would come out of it.
At the least, they would have found the right guy to protest - not the man who is simply caring for his flock from the pulpit and otherwise. They did not even know who the man was that they were upset about.
If your claim is that Don Lemon and others were following Christ's command in disrupting the church service, and
If you are pointing to this passage from Matthew 18, in which Jesus says this is the first step,
Then you are not really reading what Jesus said.
That's what I mean when I say your reasoning is specious:
1) You are ignoring the actual nature of the case, which is a civil case deciding civil matters under federal civil law - a law that constrains protest and has not yet been ruled unconstitutional.
2) You are attempting to paint this riot as though it were the fulfillment of a Scriptural command, when, by your own interpretation, it fails to be so, by your own explication of the passage.