The offensiveness of Nobles Oblige

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hence his disparaging comments about good ole' boy presbyterianism.

I don't mean the rank and file redneck (of which I am probably one). I mean the halls of power in the PCA. That's what "Good Ole Boy" system means. They are the privileged ones, not me (not that I ultimately care about it).
 
I had a middle class upbringing. Both parents worked insanely hard. I am a school teacher. While I aspire to be a landed gentleman, it's not happening any time soon.
My mistake. You were no doubt following my lead when you referred to yourself as an aristocrat.
 
Hi. I have been a member here on the Puritan Forum for about 12 years now. I have been a Presbyterian for about 25 years and have thoroughly benefited from the theology of my adopted tradition. I was raised in an Assemblies of God church, the kind that puts an inordinate emphasis on charismatic manifestations and preaches a dispensationalist eschatology. Some of the abberations of that otherwise orthodox church were the reason I had a rebellion in the first place, and I am glad to have found a home in the reformed tradition. I have gradually come to realize, however, that by espousing the reformed tradition I have espoused the tradition and culture of the old ruling class. I am not preaching that it is a crime to be educated, North European and professional, but... I have encountered resentment to this denomination's old role as the ones in power, the class that called the shots and had all the benefits of schools and a network of coreligionists to help them secure safe and comfortable positions in society. Many of my baptist and lutherin friends are content to just poke a little fun at me for being a doctrine snob, but among working class Catholics I have have been subjected to some cold looks and stiff behavior. I think that some of our efforts at goodwill towards other traditions smack a bit of Nobles Oblige, which to other traditions comes across as offensive. I mean, we mean well, but our unspoken attitude of "ours is best, let us help you" grates on the nerves of other Christians who also have some good things to say and point to about their denominations contributions to society. We have good things to say, excellent things. But let's examine ourselves. Perhaps we need to back off a bit from singing lead and acknowledge that we are supposed to sing harmony with our fami
My apologies, but you are misspelling, and misinterpreting what 'noblesse oblige' is all about...


It is all about the obligations that come with the status...
 
Ultimately it comes down to this: do you agree with the shorter catechism when it says that there are inferiors and superiors in society and that both have duties towards each other?
 
Ultimately it comes down to this: do you agree with the shorter catechism when it says that there are inferiors and superiors in society and that both have duties towards each other?
As long as the society allows for the quick and effectual elevation of an inferior to superior status on the basis of merit and performance (and vice versa) I can accept that part of the catechism.
 
As long as the society allows for the quick and effectual elevation of an inferior to superior status on the basis of merit and performance (and vice versa) I can accept that part of the catechism.
Do you think the society in Ephesians 6 allowed for quick and effectual elevation of inferiors? Or in Rome?

That condition isn't part of Scripture.
 
Do you think the society in Ephesians 6 allowed for quick and effectual elevation of inferiors? Or in Rome?

That condition isn't part of Scripture.
OK. Let's distinguish between a society that is minimally tolerable and one that is ideal. Any society that allows me the freedom to believe and worship as I and my peers choose is acceptable. That, however, is minimal. Ideally the society would recognize a broad range of rights as innate to mankind and would structure itself accordingly. Among those rights would be the capacity to better my condition based on merit and effort.
 
OK. Let's distinguish between a society that is minimally tolerable and one that is ideal. Any society that allows me the freedom to believe and worship as I and my peers choose is acceptable. That, however, is minimal. Ideally the society would recognize a broad range of rights as innate to mankind and would structure itself accordingly. Among those rights would be the capacity to better my condition based on merit and effort.

None of those societies really existed before the modern era, and it isn't clear why we should a priori accept those particular rights (to be sure, I do believe in equity because I think that can be defended. Abstract human rights, while admirable, are often impossible to prove.
 
None of those societies really existed before the modern era, and it isn't clear why we should a priori accept those particular rights (to be sure, I do believe in equity because I think that can be defended. Abstract human rights, while admirable, are often impossible to prove.
My status as a man created in the image of God imparts to me rights and prerogatives attendant to my status as the crown of creation. I am entitled to all the freedoms and considerations of God short of those exclusive to him as actual divinity. The only limits to my prerogatives are those imposed on me as a steward of the creation (Noblesse Oblige towards the created order) and consideration for the rights and prerogatives of my fellow men.
 
I am entitled to all the freedoms and considerations of God short of those exclusive to him as actual divinity.

Are you entitled to be king? Your argument doesn't follow. Are you entitled to be a minister? Not everyone is called to ministry, so that means not everyone is entitled to a particular office or status.
 
Are you entitled to be king? Your argument doesn't follow. Are you entitled to be a minister? Not everyone is called to ministry, so that means not everyone is entitled to a particular office or status.
Consider it all. I must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of my fellow man. Were I the only man on the planet I would be king, minister, and a holder of every office appropriate for man. But I live in community. For the sake of our common benefit we specialize in roles that our respective talents and standing qualify us for. But we do this to re-enforce each others status as image bearers, not to in any way mitigate it. Consider, as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. The longer we interact with each other in our respective roles the more God-like we become.
 
For the sake of our common benefit we specialize in roles that our respective talents and standing qualify us for.

I agree with that, but it cuts against your earlier claim that I am entitled to everything short of divinity.

And to reiterate--nobless oblige is the Reformed understanding of the 5th commandment.
 
I agree with that, but it cuts against your earlier claim that I am entitled to everything short of divinity.

And to reiterate--nobless oblige is the Reformed understanding of the 5th commandment.
I qualified that assertion with the condition that we must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of our fellow men. It would be better to say that we enjoy the benefits of the rights and prerogatives of our fellow man. It is a quality of the believer that we take as much joy in someone else's good fortune as we do in our own. By extension we enjoy the exercise of some one else's God-image prerogatives when done in his role in society as much as if we were doing it ourselves. I am not arguing for the existence of some sort of hive-mind, just the simple pleasure that one takes in membership in a well organized and well run society that extends the respect of image bearing to all it's members.
 
I qualified that assertion with the condition that we must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of our fellow men. It would be better to say that we enjoy the benefits of the rights and prerogatives of our fellow man. It is a quality of the believer that we take as much joy in someone else's good fortune as we do in our own. By extension we enjoy the exercise of some one else's God-image prerogatives when done in his role in society as much as if we were doing it ourselves. I am not arguing for the existence of some sort of hive-mind, just the simple pleasure that one takes in membership in a well organized and well run society that extends the respect of image bearing to all it's members.

All of this sounds nice, but why should we believe any of it? This sounds like we are reading modern theories of human rights and social contract theory back into biblical ethics.
 
All of this sounds nice, but why should we believe any of it? This sounds like we are reading modern theories of human rights and social contract theory back into biblical ethics.
Our standing as created in the image of God is a first principle. I know you believe that. Now we are fallen, and we can no longer have an ideal society. Everyone here acknowledges that. A modern theory of human rights and social contract theory probably espouses the notion of the perfectibility of man through social organizations, which I do not believe. But God does not want for us the society which we deserve, which would be a living hell, but rather a society that enjoys the gradual suffusion of his Grace through the operation of his church. We have to trust in the common graces of God which he extends to all mankind as well as the extraordinary graces which he extends to his church to make a society that allows for the kinds of freedoms to it's members that I have described to function. It won't be perfect, it can't be anymore, but God is good, so we can actually believe in the possibility of a decent society that does not resort to heavy handed restrictions on the prerogatives of individuals to insure order. To put it succinctly, we can have a good society, not because we are good, but because God is.
 
Our standing as created in the image of God is a first principle. I know you believe that. Now we are fallen, and we can no longer have an ideal society. Everyone here acknowledges that. A modern theory of human rights and social contract theory probably espouses the notion of the perfectibility of man through social organizations, which I do not believe. But God does not want for us the society which we deserve, which would be a living hell, but rather a society that enjoys the gradual suffusion of his Grace through the operation of his church. We have to trust in the common graces of God which he extends to all mankind as well as the extraordinary graces which he extends to his church to make a society that allows for the kinds of freedoms to it's members that I have described to function. It won't be perfect, it can't be anymore, but God is good, so we can actually believe in the possibility of a decent society that does not resort to heavy handed restrictions on the prerogatives of individuals to insure order. To put it succinctly, we can have a good society, not because we are good, but because God is.

Having a good society is nice, but it doesn't prove your point about each person should have equal access to all rights and privileges. That isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What you have described is traditional conservatism of the old European variety, but traditional conservatism generally didn't believe in (or at least focus on) equal access for equal rights.
 
Having a good society is nice, but it doesn't prove your point about each person should have equal access to all rights and privileges. That isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What you have described is traditional conservatism of the old European variety, but traditional conservatism generally didn't believe in (or at least focus on) equal access for equal rights.
There are two ways one can cultivate restraint and responsible behavior in a society. You can do it out of fear of retribution (the law) or you can teach acknowledgement of the God image in your neighbor (love). Consider. The desires and needs of representative man are really quite limited under most circumstances. Taking into account the God-image of your neighbor rarely significantly impacts the behavior of an individual who acknowledges the God-image in himself. But when they do I have maintained that the more someone involves his neighbor in his considerations the more God-like he becomes (iron sharpening iron). By this logic one becomes more capable of exercising his rights and privileges the more he operates within the role God has assigned him in society. In short, our respective roles in society are a means God uses to elevate our access and rights, not to restrict them. But, but this is not because of any innate goodness in ourselves, it is entirely an act of grace on God's part. Why do you suppose it is only the modern societies that have begun to entertain notions of social contract theory? It is because of the gradual diffusion of the acknowledgement of the God nature in us (by God's grace) that has come of the activity of the church in the world for the past two millennia. Now secular society is trying to arrogate credit for this development to itself, which secular society is going to do. It is up to the church to step up and say no, this is not something you have done under your own power or because of the social techniques you have promulgated, but it is an act of God working through his church that you have more and more of God's prerogatives in your life. "The earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." and "they shall beat their swords into plowshares." We do not do this by denying that it God's will that we should enjoy freedom and prerogative, but by giving credit where it is due.
 
There are two ways one can cultivate restraint and responsible behavior in a society. You can do it out of fear of retribution (the law) or you can teach acknowledgement of the God image in your neighbor (love). Consider. The desires and needs of representative man are really quite limited under most circumstances. Taking into account the God-image of your neighbor rarely significantly impacts the behavior of an individual who acknowledges the God-image in himself. But when they do I have maintained that the more someone involves his neighbor in his considerations the more God-like he becomes (iron sharpening iron). By this logic one becomes more capable of exercising his rights and privileges the more he operates within the role God has assigned him in society. In short, our respective roles in society are a means God uses to elevate our access and rights, not to restrict them. But, but this is not because of any innate goodness in ourselves, it is entirely an act of grace on God's part. Why do you suppose it is only the modern societies that have begun to entertain notions of social contract theory? It is because of the gradual diffusion of the acknowledgement of the God nature in us (by God's grace) that has come of the activity of the church in the world for the past two millennia. Now secular society is trying to arrogate credit for this development to itself, which secular society is going to do. It is up to the church to step up and say no, this is not something you have done under your own power or because of the social techniques you have promulgated, but it is an act of God working through his church that you have more and more of God's prerogatives in your life. "The earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." and "they shall beat their swords into plowshares." We do not do this by denying that it God's will that we should enjoy freedom and prerogative, but by giving credit where it is due.

None of this proves your original point that any given person is entitled to x, y, and z.

But let's go back to the original post. Now that you understand what nobless oblige does and doesn't mean, do you agree that it is not only compatible but demanded by the shorter catechism's interpretation of the 5th commandment?
 
None of this proves your original point that any given person is entitled to x, y, and z.

But let's go back to the original post. Now that you understand what nobless oblige does and doesn't mean, do you agree that it is not only compatible but demanded by the shorter catechism's interpretation of the 5th commandment?
I concede your position on nobless oblige. But I ask you, what does to take to convince you that we are entitled to any given right or prerogative? Does it have to be explicitly enumerated in the scripture? Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets were encapsulated in the commands to love the Lord God with all your heart mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. Does not the Pauline command to place other's consideration's above your own imply that we are to extend rights and prerogatives to our neighbors (and ourselves) that are limited only insofar as our wants and needs are limited? I know that preaching the primacy of love over all other aspects of God has led to terrible deviations from the will of God, but surely you acknowledge our role of stewards over the teaching of the word. We should not ask for a bit and bridle before we presume to discern God's intent in the bible. We have the spirit and we have the restraining influence of the Church and tradition to keep us from deviating from his intent.
 
But I ask you, what does to take to convince you that we are entitled to any given right or prerogative?

First, a discussion of "rights." That is by no means a self-evident term.
Does it have to be explicitly enumerated in the scripture? Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets were encapsulated in the commands to love the Lord God with all your heart mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Since i hold to natural law, no, it doesn't have to be specified in Scripture.

Does not the Pauline command to place other's consideration's above your own imply that we are to extend rights and prerogatives to our neighbors (and ourselves) that are limited only insofar as our wants and needs are limited?

1) Is Paul talking to the church or to humanity in general? 2) Depends on what a right (ius) is.
but surely you acknowledge our role of stewards over the teaching of the word

Sure, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.
We should not ask for a bit and bridle before we presume to discern God's intent in the bible. We have the spirit and we have the restraining influence of the Church and tradition to keep us from deviating from his intent.

I'm not sure what this part of the discussion has to do with the nature of rights.
 
Hmm.. You believe in natural rights. That places your arguments on a different footing than mine. Are you of the school that believes we can deduce rights based on a close observation of human behavior?
 
Hmm.. You believe in natural rights. That places your arguments on a different footing than mine. Are you of the school that believes we can deduce rights based on a close observation of human behavior?

No. I believe, with the larger Christian history, that natural law is a participation in the Divine Reason. Rights, such as they are, can then be deduced from that. Of course, even then, and I believe my position is the right one, it's hard to deduce more than a few rights. Since a "right" can be anything from my property to forcing the government to pay for whatever I want.

I believe there are rights. I just don't think rights-talk is all that useful beyond the initial few deductions. But to bring this back to the OP

I have a right to expect the honors and duties due me by my inferiors and equals. Moreover, my inferiors and superiors have certain rights from which they expect me to perform. Naturally, these rights aren't the same
 
No. I believe, with the larger Christian history, that natural law is a participation in the Divine Reason. Rights, such as they are, can then be deduced from that. Of course, even then, and I believe my position is the right one, it's hard to deduce more than a few rights. Since a "right" can be anything from my property to forcing the government to pay for whatever I want.

I believe there are rights. I just don't think rights-talk is all that useful beyond the initial few deductions. But to bring this back to the OP

I have a right to expect the honors and duties due me by my inferiors and equals. Moreover, my inferiors and superiors have certain rights from which they expect me to perform. Naturally, these rights aren't the same
I don't know, I don't know about that. I mean Christ condescended to wash the feet of his disciples. I guess we have to distinguish between those inside the church and those outside. We are to render all rights and honors to those outside the church for the sake of leading peaceful and inoffensive lives in whatever society we find ourselves, but do we really model Christ like behavior when we insist on rights and prerogatives of our own? I have dwelt a lot on God like prerogatives that are our's due to our status as image bearers, perhaps I need to address the issue of God like behavior. Let's put it bluntly, God doesn't owe us a thing except his wrath as insolent inferiors, but his nature moves him to show us love and grace, to even elevate us to Christ like status in the coming world. Shouldn't we have at least a shadow of that attitude towards the lesser souls in our own society? Didn't Christ choose the foolish things of world to confound the wise? The weak things to overcome the strong? Or how about Paul. He had the rights of an apostle when he ministered to expect food and a stipend from the church but chose to forgo both for the sake of not offending the weak in the church. Let me put it this way, if accepting the honors and duties of an inferior will not negatively impact their concept of your status as a disciple of a sacrificing Christ then OK, accept their honor and duty. But if doing that is going to be in any way off putting to their concept of Christian humility then you are bound to forego your priviliges, even to minister to them if that's what it takes to convince then of truth of the claims of Christ.
 
I had a middle class upbringing. Both parents worked insanely hard. I am a school teacher. While I aspire to be a landed gentleman, it's not happening any time soon.
I'm more from the Kulak class than the proletariat. It's the attempts by the elites to downgrade me that I object to.
 
but do we really model Christ like behavior when we insist on rights and prerogatives of our own?

If true, then that undercuts your whole argument on others' needing rights. When they ask for rights, we can just deny them and say, "You need to be like Jesus and not insist on rights."

I don't consider myself better than anyone else (better at/for what?). Nonetheless, I and others occupy certain stations which either give or receive honor.

I owe honor and respect to the police officer. I can't cuss him out and then say, "You need to be like Christ and not insist on honor."
 
If true, then that undercuts your whole argument on others' needing rights. When they ask for rights, we can just deny them and say, "You need to be like Jesus and not insist on rights."

I don't consider myself better than anyone else (better at/for what?). Nonetheless, I and others occupy certain stations which either give or receive honor.

I owe honor and respect to the police officer. I can't cuss him out and then say, "You need to be like Christ and not insist on honor."
There is a distinction between having rights and enforcing them. As believers, nothing takes away our status as the chosen children of God with rights and prerogatives with God the father. The Spirit and the gifts are ours. We can petition the throne at any time and God hears us and responds. All this is ours. You are absolutely correct, we are spiritual aristocrats. Nobody can deny your right to exercise your rights. But we are also servants. Jesus was quite clear, "To him who has been given much, much will be expected." If you go through life insisting on your rights in every situation then you are basically burying your talent instead of putting it to work for the kingdom. If you forego honor from men for the sake of imitating Christ you don't lose anything, you receive great, great honor from God in return. Which would you rather have? The quick and relatively cheap (and probably forced) honor of an inferior or the eternal, rich and elevating honor from God that comes from putting the sensitivities of another before your own?
 
There is a distinction between having rights and enforcing them. As believers, nothing takes away our status as the chosen children of God with rights and prerogatives with God the father. The Spirit and the gifts are ours. We can petition the throne at any time and God hears us and responds. All this is ours. You are absolutely correct, we are spiritual aristocrats. Nobody can deny your right to exercise your rights. But we are also servants. Jesus was quite clear, "To him who has been given much, much will be expected." If you go through life insisting on your rights in every situation then you are basically burying your talent instead of putting it to work for the kingdom. If you forego honor from men for the sake of imitating Christ you don't lose anything, you receive great, great honor from God in return. Which would you rather have? The quick and relatively cheap (and probably forced) honor of an inferior or the eternal, rich and elevating honor from God that comes from putting the sensitivities of another before your own?

Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.

I don't "insist on my rights." But I also don't want to create a structure where others sin by not performing the rights and duties due to each one in his several places and relations (that last sentence was a word for word quote from the Shorter Catechism. If you disagree with it, then you disagree with Westminster on this point).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top