BigNut recently raised the question* of whether I was engaging in cognitive dissonance (i.e. a kind way of describing the path of mutually contradicting beliefs/practices leading to hypocrisy - not that he meant that, but it's how I would define c.d. if the situations were reversed and I was being blunt) by claiming a) God as truth and to disbelieve/disapprove any who disagree with Him, and also b) to espouse Machiavelli, who puts expediency with regards to political power above obedience to God. 

          My initial response was to say, of course not!  But if that is true, then I need to be able to prove it to a reasonable person.  Either way this turns out, I am grateful to him for the gracious way he’s raised the question and the kindness he’s showing by not allowing me to wallow in the ignorance of this blind spot.  “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” Prov 27:6.

          So, I started by going to the passage and reading the whole chapter in an attempt to get the context of the verse.  I'm quoting it below for the reader's convenience and because that's the way I like to work.

2 Cor. 6:1-13 (ESV) 

    Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.  [2] For he says,

    "In a favorable time I listened to you,

        and in a day of salvation I have helped you."

Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.  [3] We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry,  [4] but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities,  [5] beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger;  [6] by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love,  [7] by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left;  [8] through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true;  [9] as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed;  [10] as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

    [11] We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open.  [12] You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.  [13] In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.

This first half of 2 Cor 6 implores the Corinthians to “not receive the grace of God in vain.”  He goes on to state that “now is the day of salvation”, and then to list the many ways that he and his companions have suffered for the gospel.  Paul’s goal was to “put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry”.

            I’m convicted right there that, to some degree, I’ve been putting the goals of the [Christian] homeschooling movement ahead of the ministry of the gospel.  Not that there isn’t a place for advancing political aims, but that should be a secondary concern in any conversation.  This leads me to consider the second half of 2 Cor 6.

2 Cor. 6:14-18 (ESV) 

    Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  [15] What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?  [16] What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

    "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,

        and I will be their God,

        and they shall be my people.

    [17] Therefore go out from their midst,

        and be separate from them, says the Lord,

    and touch no unclean thing;

        then I will welcome you,

    [18] and I will be a father to you,

        and you shall be sons and daughters to me,

    says the Lord Almighty."

            Historically**, I’d always understood this passage (2 Cor 6:14) to primarily refer to marriage between believers and unbelievers*** and secondarily to a general proscription/warning against binding ourselves (as believers) tightly to unbelievers.  The basic concept being, from my reading of the passage, that believers and unbelievers have fundamental differences, which are mutually irreconcilable.  Y’don’t put a capitalist and a communist in mutual charge of the economy – one or the other must dominate (or nothing will be achieved) – to use an example from recent history.

            So then, how do I apply this passage in my life?  What does it mean for me to not be “unequally yoked”?  Is my fate a monastery in the Alps or a farm in PA?  I don’t think so … but I do see a need to more carefully examine how/why I believe or promote anything outside of Scripture.  I know that all Scripture is true, breathed out by God, and eternal.  I am also convinced that everything outside of Scripture contains some degree of error.  So it seems that the way forward is to identify and commend whatever conforms to Scripture and to ruthlessly root out of my belief system that which doesn’t.  When I encounter others in (what I believe to be) error, I should deal gently with them, remembering the many time that I have been in error (and may still be).  Yet I need to be faithful to point out the truth.  To do otherwise would be to willfully leave them in error – possibly leading to eternal death.

2 Tim. 2:24-25 (ESV) 

    And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,  [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 

Lots to think about …

Thor

* Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to link to a specific spot on another webpage.  There's a LONG conversation/argument on that page.  If you want to save yourself time and effort, just scroll down to post #21 and read his second point.  I think that I've accurately captured the heart of it, however, in my opening paragraphs.

** Typically when I use “historically” in this sense it means my personal experience, although on occasion it simply means ‘this has been the historical trend’.  Obviously this is a limited perspective that hasn’t benefited from in-depth research.  I’m open to being corrected, but the purpose of the phrase is to give the reader a sense of why I believe x, y, or z fact to be true.

*** I also spent some time looking up all the cross references for this passage, and they nearly all referred to prohibitions against intermarriage between the Israelites and the surrounding nations.  This certainly isn’t conclusive proof of anything, but it does seem to confirm the emphasis that I’ve always associated with this verse.