Thread: Trump's Evangelical Endorsers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030558
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
One of the leading lights of Donald Trump's 'Evangelical Executive Committee', Robert Morris, will be 'preaching' at HTB this Sunday—just two days before the US election at a church popular with London US expats. It's a miracle!
This is only one of several of Nicky Gumbel's Trump-supporting pals to speak at an HTB event. Anyone planning a protest?
K.
[Title change to reflect broadening of discussion]
[ 16. November 2016, 16:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
WTF? Link, please....
IJ
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Oh sorry! I messed up the code. One moment please…
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
This link will take you there, but it's one of those accordion-type websites (but, alas, doesn't play polkas).
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Is the CoE allowed to play politics like that?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is the CoE allowed to play politics like that?
Nicky tries to stand at the edge of the CoE. Both he and (his predecessor) Sandy Millar, frequently invited political guests to speak at events. Tony Blair (ok, a far cry from Donald Trump!) spoke at the HTB leadership conference a few years ago, but this is the horse of a different colour.
I'd be surprised if the ABC would approve of this—and the timing of it is very worrying.
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think a certain brand of evangelical in particular, perhaps because of their naivety, are constantly falling into the trap of believing that because they have got some high-powered politician on the platform, they are having an influence in the corridors of power, being the prophets to the king, and so on; whereas in most if not all cases, they are simply being played for votes.
[ 03. November 2016, 16:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think a certain brand of evangelical in particular, perhaps because of their naivety, are constantly falling into the trap of believing that because they have got some high-powered politician on the platform, they are having an influence in the corridors of power, being the prophets to the king, and so on; whereas in most if not all cases, they are simply being played for votes.
It's a pity, really.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
*Devil's advocate hat on*
Might there not be a jumping to a conclusion here? The website doesn't state what it is he's talking about.
Plus, what if he is talking politics? Should churches have a ban on people talking politics? Christianity is political. His kind of politics might be the kind we disagree with, but what if we want to preach the 'love your neighbour' politics that we find much more palatable than the 'grab them by the pussy' politics? If we seek to pre-emptively condemn or lodge a protest does that not open us up to criticism if we say: quote:
"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt."
Would it not be better to hear what he has to say and assess him on that?
*Devil's advocate hat off*
That said, what's the point in a career spent preaching against antichrists if you then go and endorse one for president?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I went there mentally, Sipech, and came back.
Having Tony Blair speak at a random leadership conference is just about plausible. Having a pastor who is a member of Trump's Evangelical Executive Advisory Board preach multiple times - on the Sunday before US Election day - is blatantly political no matter how you look at it.
I have worked on an expenses-paid basis interpreting for Alpha international leaders' conferences a couple of times now, basically to see how much of it I can stand from the safe distance of a translation booth. I have an invitation to go again next year and this news from Komensky has given me pause.
But then again, a boycott is political too. Politics in France is trying to court the Christian vote, too, now (here* is the latest campaign poster for one of the right-wing primary candidates).
What I really hate about this divisive climate is that it is forcing me to mix faith and party politics ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
==
*The name of this Christian Democrat obviously means "fish" and that ichthus is probably a dog-whistle for Catholics first and foremost, but I'm sure he won't turn down any spare evos.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
In all fairness, what Sipech said.
But it stinks, nevertheless. HTB may, whatever Morris speaks about, be seen to be endorsing Trump. Still, HTB seems these days to be almost a separate denomination, so I doubt if the ABC would have any influence...
IJ
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
That said, what's the point in a career spent preaching against antichrists if you then go and endorse one for president?
I can't immediately find out if Morris has endorsed Trump. In a "in Soviet Russia, candidate endorses YOU" moment, the Trump campaign statement says: quote:
The leaders on the executive board were not asked to endorse Mr. Trump as a prerequisite for participating on the board.
Rather, the formation of the board represents Donald J. Trump’s endorsement of those diverse issues important to Evangelicals and other Christians
Though of course agreeing to be on the board is at least a tacit endorsement of some kind.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Amateur hour at the zoo, frankly. There's an election on Tuesday. He's going to be on the wrong continent on Sunday. Talking to a bunch of people, most of whom can't vote for Trump and a lot of whom wouldn't anyway, instead of being in a mega-church in a swing state convincing the doubters that voting for Trump is the only way of getting a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, or whatever the rationale is for why Jesus wants a certifiable maniac in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
It's not the evil that appals me. It's the sheer fucking unprofessionalism. It's the sort of thing Jeremy Corbyn would do.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
As Eutychus has said (suggested?!), it's hard to believe the timing is accidental.
This article from Christianity Today (hardly a Lefty organ) gives a flavour of the pack.
As a former member of HTB (who still has friends their), NG is getting very cozy with American right-wing evangelicals. In addition to Joyce Meyer, they are also involving preachers from the Joel Osteen brand.
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That might actually be a calculation on Morris' part. A little reading around suggests he's stopped short of outright endorsement. Being out of the country at a strategic time sounds like a good place to be if hedging one's bets.
HTB will be excited because it looks all newsy and stuff, meanwhile Morris will be able to bask in reflected glory if Trump wins, but distance himself from Trump after the event if he doesn't.
[ETA: I was responding to Callan]
[ 03. November 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
From Komensky's linked article: quote:
Gateway Church created the Vote Under God website in 2016, which encourages Christians to vote. Gateway is aiming for 100 percent voter participation among its 36,000 members this fall. Morris identifies the definition of marriage, the right to life, government vs. private health care, the national debt, and religious freedoms as key issues.
I think that tells you which way they want that 100% turnout to vote.
The deal-breaker, though, must surely be this:
quote:
Morris... is on the board of Mark Driscoll’s new Trinity Church in Arizona.
I heard one of Meyer's talks at Alpha Leaders in 2015. I have to say she's a good preacher, and didn't say anything I took exception to. Benefiting from her preaching (via cassette, eons ago) also indirectly played a pivotal role in me reversing my position on women's ministry, so she has that going for her.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Amateur hour at the zoo, frankly. There's an election on Tuesday. He's going to be on the wrong continent on Sunday. Talking to a bunch of people, most of whom can't vote for Trump and a lot of whom wouldn't anyway, instead of being in a mega-church in a swing state convincing the doubters that voting for Trump is the only way of getting a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, or whatever the rationale is for why Jesus wants a certifiable maniac in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
My thoughts, too (although I don't think I could've expressed it so well). I can't imagine US voters caring about who's preaching at HTB. In fact, even though I knew about Alpha and Nicky Gumbel, it took me a while to think of what HTB stood for. Seeing Nicky's name is what helped me with that. But most US folks have never heard of him and US evangelicals would be suspicious of a church that's technically CofE no matter how on the fringes it is. At least I think... but I've really lost the ability to understand what US evangelicals will do or believe anymore.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That might actually be a calculation on Morris' part. A little reading around suggests he's stopped short of outright endorsement. Being out of the country at a strategic time sounds like a good place to be if hedging one's bets.
HTB will be excited because it looks all newsy and stuff, meanwhile Morris will be able to bask in reflected glory if Trump wins, but distance himself from Trump after the event if he doesn't.
[ETA: I was responding to Callan]
Ah, shades of John Major booking himself in for some dental work when Mrs T. was fighting for her political life. That makes sense from his POV.
Not sure what HTB get out of it. I recently had occasion to spend some time among HTBers and I doubt that many of them are Trump fans and certainly not the younger element and very certainly not the women. Archbishop Justin, the most prominent HTBer in public life, is by no means insensitive to the fact that if we are not careful we (the C of E) might end up giving the impression to the unaffiliated that we are a bunch of cock-wombles and is basically sound on the nationalist question - he came out in favour of Remain. So I doubt that Brer Morris, let alone Trump, is his particular cup of lukewarm beverage. If the older generation do decide that they want to play pat-a-cake with the alt-right they may find themselves with a blazing row on their hands. Let us hope that there was nothing more sinister than naivety is at work. HTB is the one resounding success story in the C of E in recent years and in my recent interactions with them, I found that I rather liked them. So when I say that I hope the weekend passes without incident and is not repeated I am not concern trolling.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
He's going to be on the wrong continent on Sunday. Talking to a bunch of people, most of whom can't vote for Trump and a lot of whom wouldn't anyway, instead of being in a mega-church in a swing state convincing the doubters that voting for Trump is the only way of getting a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, or whatever the rationale is for why Jesus wants a certifiable maniac in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
He couldn't explicitly* stump for Trump at an American church, mega- or not, without endangering that church's tax-exempt status. Maybe that's why he's stumping in England.
*He could almost go there, talking about the need to vote in a way to ensure the unborn will be protected, etc., but he couldn't go so far as to say "vote for Trump."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I accept I don't know the full fact. Nevertheless, if this man is a Trump advocate. I have a problem with his being allowed to occupy a pulpit on any other basis than 'explain yourself'.
I've no idea whether this chap is coming over here to campaign for Trump among non-domiciled voters, but it strikes me that this is one of the very rare occasions when one can say that it isn't just stupid to vote for Trump, but is actually a sin, wickedness.
I've said before on these threads, that the only people for whom that might not be the case, are his relatives who might feel that family loyalty obliges them to vote for him.
Those church leaders who are embracing Trump because they think he's more likely to give them one or two single issue causes that they have equated with the totality of the Christian gospel are trying to make a bargain that they should know better than to have anything to do with.
This may seem to some shipmates an over simplistic view, but this is a very, very rare and unusual situation, and it's a view I'm sticking to.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
He couldn't explicitly* stump for Trump at an American church, mega- or not, without endangering that church's tax-exempt status. Maybe that's why he's stumping in England.
Is he actually likely to be stumping in England? I was under the impression that overseas voters were likely to have a postal vote that would have to be placed well in advance of the event?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I heard one of Meyer's talks at Alpha Leaders in 2015. I have to say she's a good preacher, and didn't say anything I took exception to.
AFAICT the issues with her are around her rather over-realized view of the Christian life, and her embrace of Word of Faith/Seed Faith style teachings. I imagine that these are least likely to come out when speaking to leaders.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
He couldn't explicitly* stump for Trump at an American church, mega- or not, without endangering that church's tax-exempt status. Maybe that's why he's stumping in England.
*He could almost go there, talking about the need to vote in a way to ensure the unborn will be protected, etc., but he couldn't go so far as to say "vote for Trump."
Nick could I ask you a question? It is normal round here, where churches are quite often the easiest available large public spaces, to hold hustings in churches and invite candidates each to present their cases to the assembled public, and often to answer questions. It is also normally taken for granted that all the candidates attend on the same basis.
From what you say, would that be illegal in the US? Or would it only put a church's tax-exempt status at risk if appeared to endorse the candidate it liked by only giving him or her the opportunity and not all extending it to all the others.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think it is illegal in the US for a church to explicitly endorse a candidate. It is OK to invite a pol to speak, just like it is OK to invite a postman, an academic, etc. Nor can the church control what is done outside its premises; many a time I have come out from my church and found a political leaflet tucked under my windshield wiper. The assumption is that, in attending this church, I am a good prospect for whatever cause it is.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From what you say, would that be illegal in the US? Or would it only put a church's tax-exempt status at risk if appeared to endorse the candidate it liked by only giving him or her the opportunity and not all extending it to all the others.
The latter. Hosting or encouraging political discussion is fine. Taking a position on an election or endorsing a specific candidate is not.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Amateur hour at the zoo, frankly. There's an election on Tuesday. He's going to be on the wrong continent on Sunday. Talking to a bunch of people, most of whom can't vote for Trump and a lot of whom wouldn't anyway, instead of being in a mega-church in a swing state convincing the doubters that voting for Trump is the only way of getting a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, or whatever the rationale is for why Jesus wants a certifiable maniac in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
Personally, I think the notion of taking a speaking engagement-- any speaking engagement-- overseas this week sounds freakin' brilliant. Get out of town now before the **** hits the fan. Anyone need a D-list left-wing evangelical to speak at their rotary club/ ladies' guild/ boy scout troop this week???
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You could always take my slot back home this Sunday: I'm preaching out of town and doing an afternoon session on Revelation, or the Apocalypse as it's known here,
I think the timing is coincidental, but the temptation to talk about, and suitably interpret, beasts with ten horns and so on may prove irresistible...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That might actually be a calculation on Morris' part. A little reading around suggests he's stopped short of outright endorsement. Being out of the country at a strategic time sounds like a good place to be if hedging one's bets.
HTB will be excited because it looks all newsy and stuff, meanwhile Morris will be able to bask in reflected glory if Trump wins, but distance himself from Trump after the event if he doesn't.
[ETA: I was responding to Callan]
This sounds utterly sinister to me. Morris has openly and willingly joined a foul, racist and bigoted political movement. He can't be let off such a serious breach so lightly.
K.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suppose I shouldn't really care, but this is a pretty stupid move on the part of Holy Trinity Brompton.
There have always been British evangelicals who have to some extent brushed noses with the more extreme USAmerican evangelicals - usually operating within the subset of creationism, anti-abortionism and/or Northern Irish style Paisley-ism - however for the last 20 years, HTB has generally projected a message that they're friendly and above such things. So Alpha was extended to include Roman Catholics and so on.
By engaging with idiots who seem to give time to other extremist Conservative Evangelicals, then HTB can't help looking like an outfit that is giving them some level of legitimacy. By lauding someone who is this close to Trump (albeit, one might say, some lateral and literal distance from him, clearly the Evangelical Executive Committee must be designed to curry some kind of favours with the US Evangelical community) they can't help looking like they're giving support to Trump.
I'm sure that HTB would bluster that they're just engaging with current events, listening to a broad spectrum of views blahdiblah, but this and other recent moves are firmly putting the HTB brand - and by extension the Alpha brand - further into the Conservative Evangelical territory.
Which makes it interesting as to the dynamics within the wider Evangelical camps that they inhabit, more particularly the ones in the Anglican church. The uber Conservative Evangelical wing of the church (as opposed to the HTB wing) is small, angry and sidelined. The intersection with New Wine is much bigger - but has been reeling from their own scandals with major figures being toppled by sexual misconduct.
And what of the Alpha brand?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Tom Mullins, who runs a church in Florida that my relatives attend, was asked on the board. Mullins went to the meeting to find out more – including why he’d been asked. He’s not a big a beast as some of the other invitees. He was totally blunt about the invite to advise as not being the same as an endorsement. In the end, he decided not to accept.
Reaction to the invite amongst the congregation was pretty negative. Proving the US evangelical scene is not as clear cut as it can sometimes appear.
We’ve been a few times whilst we were on holiday and it seemed quite sensible. I’d consider attending if we lived there. Congregation members tell me that when there were a few shouts from the pews of “Go Trump” and “America is the best”, the leadership were very quick to shut them down. They were very blunt about not endorsing anyone or getting involved in politics.
Whilst some on the list would probably endorse anything Republican, a few may have accepted in the hope of being a positive influence. Which seems to be working out well. (Not).
An American has been asked to preach in a church in another country. Whilst HTB might have some American expats, their postal votes are likely to have been sent in ages ago so anything he says will have limited influence. I’m not seeing the big conspiracy here. But any church that invites the likes of Joel O is off my Christmas card list. Total wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Tubbs
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Whilst HTB might have some American expats, their postal votes are likely to have been sent in ages ago so anything he says will have limited influence.
Irrespective of the actual influence, it still comes across as a political statement, unavoidably so given the timing.
I can imagine it takes humility and fortitude to turn down an invitation to serve on such a committee.
I also think the biggest sign of it being a trap is that it has been made public by the Trump campaign.
When politicians actually want advice (as opposed to tacit endorsement), they don't advertise the fact or use it as part of their platform. After, as I recall, a notorious photograph of him kneeling to pray with a US President, Billy Graham seems to have learned from this mistake early on and advised subsequent incumbents much more discreetly.
Just by publicising the committee's existence, Trump has ensured debate in evangelical circles and thus further free publicity for his own brand in those circles, remembering that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
He was totally blunt about the invite to advise as not being the same as an endorsement. In the end, he decided not to accept.
Help me understand the point of the Evangelical Executive Committee if it is not intended, in some way, to give Trump credibility to and from the Evangelical community.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
He was totally blunt about the invite to advise as not being the same as an endorsement. In the end, he decided not to accept.
Help me understand the point of the Evangelical Executive Committee if it is not intended, in some way, to give Trump credibility to and from the Evangelical community.
Well yes, that’s totally the point of it. Mullins, to his credit, realised the whole thing was a con and refused his invite.
Whilst Mullins Snr is fairly traditionally evangelical in his views, his church has always been politically neutral. He probably decided that a) being involved with Trump would compromise that and b) given the amount of ill feeling that going to a meeting to explore the possibility of being on the Board caused, there were more minuses than pluses.
Billy Graham and his organisations never endorsed anyone for President. Then Franklyn took over and they endorsed the GOP / Romney. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Tubbs
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
He's going to be on the wrong continent on Sunday. Talking to a bunch of people, most of whom can't vote for Trump and a lot of whom wouldn't anyway, instead of being in a mega-church in a swing state convincing the doubters that voting for Trump is the only way of getting a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, or whatever the rationale is for why Jesus wants a certifiable maniac in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
He couldn't explicitly* stump for Trump at an American church, mega- or not, without endangering that church's tax-exempt status. Maybe that's why he's stumping in England.
*He could almost go there, talking about the need to vote in a way to ensure the unborn will be protected, etc., but he couldn't go so far as to say "vote for Trump."
I thought the way round that was, in the course of a twenty minute sermon, to at one point disavow all intention of telling his hearers how to vote but to insist that they must minutely scrutinise their conscience and then, a few minutes later, tell them that Jesus will require from them, on the great day of judgement, an account of what they did to protect the unborn. White evangelicals don't vote as a bloc for decades without a little encouragement from their leadership.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Whilst HTB might have some American expats, their postal votes are likely to have been sent in ages ago so anything he says will have limited influence.
Irrespective of the actual influence, it still comes across as a political statement, unavoidably so given the timing.
...
I don’t disagree. But people, even smart ones, aren’t always good at thinking about how something might look from an external perspective.
Someone was probably so pleased about getting a high profile, external US based preacher to lead the Sunday before the election they might not have gone onto the next thought … That it would be better to have someone neutral rather than someone directly connected with one particular campaign.
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that one of my contributions at work and elsewhere is pointing out stuff that should be blooming obvious to someone with half a brain but isn’t …
Tubbs
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Something from The Huffington Post about the Executive Council of Evangelical Leaders.
I wonder if Robert Morris was booked to come HTB before or after the group was announced in June. HTB's web site is uninformative about what he will be doing, though the Gateway Church is probably (well-)known within the HTB constituency.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder if Robert Morris was booked to come HTB before or after the group was announced in June.
If before, then they should have pulled the gig. That's what professionals do when there's a potential conflict of interest, to protect their brand, and HTB projects professionalism and branding from every pore.
ETA and Tubbs, there's absolutely no way he's neutral at this stage.
[ 04. November 2016, 11:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You could always take my slot back home this Sunday: I'm preaching out of town and doing an afternoon session on Revelation, or the Apocalypse as it's known here,
I think the timing is coincidental, but the temptation to talk about, and suitably interpret, beasts with ten horns and so on may prove irresistible...
Tell me about it. I'm on tap this Sunday, and the lectionary hands me 2 Thess 2, including these verses:
quote:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
I think I can just barely restrain myself from substituting "Donald" for "man of lawlessness".... but it won't be easy...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
<snip> But any church that invites the likes of Joel O is off my Christmas card list. Total wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Tubbs
Or even a wolf in wolf's clothing. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
This is all sounding like ideal material for a Jack Chick-style tract, got up regardless, and complete with The Faceless God requiring an explanation.....
IJ
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Well Pastor Morris will certainly be addressing a lot of people: he's scheduled to 'preach' at all HTB services plus one at their Onslow Square outpost.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder if Robert Morris was booked to come HTB before or after the group was announced in June.
If before, then they should have pulled the gig. That's what professionals do when there's a potential conflict of interest, to protect their brand, and HTB projects professionalism and branding from every pore.
ETA and Tubbs, there's absolutely no way he's neutral at this stage.
I totally agree. But, given my experience of seeing brand management and marketing in action, it’s amazing the stuff that people don’t think of. Stuff that seems glaringly obvious as an outsider looking in.
To us, having a pro-Trump speaker at your church a few days before the election given everything that’s gone on is an act of clossial stupity … To them, it’s probably great they’ve got someone so directly connected with a high profile current event. Show’s how relevant and important they are. Most churches can’t get speakers of that calibre. Go them!
[My teeny tiny church is currently well chuffed with itself as we the current head of the BU is coming to preach later this year. Unlike any of the bigger Baptist churches in the area. But we’ve known him for years and he’s coming because he’s a mate. But, I don't begrudge the congregation the opportunity to be smug. It's not often we get bragging rights]
Tubbs
[ 04. November 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Not that long ago the former mayor of an African capital with population of over a million people attended my church. He expected no special treatment and sat along with everybody else, including people who had been on a mission team with a para-church organisation to his city.
The latter were and still are blissfully unaware of who he was, and of the fact that his intelligence services had been watching over their safety throughout their stay, when he was still in office.
HTB's enslavement to the external trappings of power is so thoroughly worldly it's untrue.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I am likely to be attending one of the services as I am meeting a friend who attends HTB.
I am happy to report back on how he is introduced and what he has to say, if anyone is interested.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Yes please.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am likely to be attending one of the services as I am meeting a friend who attends HTB.
I am happy to report back on how he is introduced and what he has to say, if anyone is interested.
Will be interesting. Taking one for the team!
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Rather you than me. My ex goes there, but not sure which service she goes to. A meeting I'd rather not have.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
HTB publish all (or nearly all?) sermons as downloads on their website, so I guess that by, say, Wednesday, anyone with access to a computer will be able to make their own judgements on the merit or otherwise of what Morris has to say.
In fairness to HTB, I don't think so much that they are political in the sense of having, say, a right wing agenda (at least since Sandy Millar handed over to NG,) but rather they give opportunity for various shades of opinion to be expressed, and encourage their congos to make up their own minds. I very much doubt that Morris will find particular support amongst the bright young things who allegedly make up the majority of HTB attendees.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
HTB publish all (or nearly all?) sermons as downloads on their website, so I guess that by, say, Wednesday, anyone with access to a computer will be able to make their own judgements on the merit or otherwise of what Morris has to say.
In fairness to HTB, I don't think so much that they are political in the sense of having, say, a right wing agenda (at least since Sandy Millar handed over to NG,) but rather they give opportunity for various shades of opinion to be expressed, and encourage their congos to make up their own minds. I very much doubt that Morris will find particular support amongst the bright young things who allegedly make up the majority of HTB attendees.
I disagree. NG has made his political allegiances very clear. He has been a vocal supporter of his fellow Etonian, David Cameron. In American politics he is on the far-right. He has made a point of aligning himself with several outspoken Trump supporters. The latest Trump-ette is par for the course, not a derivation from it.
K.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Whatever Robert Morris may think about politics, it would not be possible to guess from what he said at HTB today, at least at the service I attended. His remarks did not address the subject at all, not even obliquely, nor did he give any kind of social commentary.
He was introduced as the pastor of a large church in Dallas, and author of a few books. He was in London for the weekend on his way back from Israel to America, and had his family with him.
He spoke primarily about two things, how to listen to the Holy Spirit, and how to be generous.
I got the impression that he was not a prosperity gospel type.
I am not an evangelical but I found him ok. I am not an infallible judge of character but he seemed a decent genuine sort of person to me.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
He probably is a decent genuine sort of person. I've never met a fully fledged supporter of Donald Trump - in the UK at least they appear to be fairly closely types - but I would be surprised if they all came across as being the love child of Ming The Merciless and Servalan.
A great deal of evil, alas, happens because decent and genuine people come to the conclusion that they have to suppress their conscience because the cause demands it. That seems to me to be the best description of evangelical supporters of Trump.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
He probably is a decent genuine sort of person. I've never met a fully fledged supporter of Donald Trump - in the UK at least they appear to be fairly closely types - but I would be surprised if they all came across as being the love child of Ming The Merciless and Servalan.
A great deal of evil, alas, happens because decent and genuine people come to the conclusion that they have to suppress their conscience because the cause demands it. That seems to me to be the best description of evangelical supporters of Trump.
Some very good points here. That Trump and his campaign are explicitly racist, sexist, ignorant and bigoted is clear. Morris has made the choice to join that campaign—amongst the ugliest in recent US history. He can talk about teddy bears at HTB for all I care, this is a man directly and willingly aligned with a sick and morally bankrupt political movement. That Nicky Gumbel should invite should a beast into his church as a speaker is, among many other examples, an indictment of his lack of moral fortitude. I do hope that Nicky is eventually exposed for this, and other, sinister and manipulative acts. He has officially joined the ranks of the right-wing loons that populate so much of the American evangelical scene.
K.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
He probably is a decent genuine sort of person. I've never met a fully fledged supporter of Donald Trump - in the UK at least they appear to be fairly closely types - but I would be surprised if they all came across as being the love child of Ming The Merciless and Servalan.
A great deal of evil, alas, happens because decent and genuine people come to the conclusion that they have to suppress their conscience because the cause demands it. That seems to me to be the best description of evangelical supporters of Trump.
Some very good points here. That Trump and his campaign are explicitly racist, sexist, ignorant and bigoted is clear. Morris has made the choice to join that campaign—amongst the ugliest in recent US history. He can talk about teddy bears at HTB for all I care, this is a man directly and willingly aligned with a sick and morally bankrupt political movement. That Nicky Gumbel should invite should a beast into his church as a speaker is, among many other examples, an indictment of his lack of moral fortitude. I do hope that Nicky is eventually exposed for this, and other, sinister and manipulative acts. He has officially joined the ranks of the right-wing loons that populate so much of the American evangelical scene.
K.
I'm inclined to cut Morris a bit more slack. I suspect that he will have been invited onto the advisory board with the explicit proviso that he is not being asked to endorse Trump. He hasn't been asked to join the campaign in the sense of endorsing Trump, and he may be very unhappy about the racism, sexism, ignorance and bigotry which has characterised it.
He and many of those he cares for as pastor will probably have been life-long Republicans, and though they probably don't care for their party's candidate, are facing the reality that Trump is the person through whom the concerns and interests of their party may be realised at presidential level.
Morris and others on the 'bigly' named Evangelical Executive Advisory Board* will be/ have been hoping that they can bring a Christian influence to the campaign. Some of them have probably considered the balance between their chances of affecting the campaign and the use Trump will make of having their names on the board - even though his campaign expressly says the members of the board were not asked to endorse Trump.
Personally, I think Christians who feel that the policies and stance of the Republican party resonate with what they consider to be core issues in society from a Christian POV, find themselves in a very hard place with Trump as the candidate. How can they promote those Republican policies without also supporting Trump, and how can they criticise Trump without also detracting from the likelihood that those policies will gain presidential support? I think theirs is a specific example of a general problem within GOP since Trump won the primaries.
* Has the promised 'Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee' which this 'executive' advisory board was supposed to lead actually been launched? I can't find any trace of it on Google.
[ 07. November 2016, 10:28: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
This priest is at least straight forward about it. I almost prefer this to the subtle message I expect many Catholics got last Sunday.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
This is the link I meant to post. I think the internet is rigged.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
The parish priest responsible for that garbage is clearly Jack Chick re-incarnated, and I claim my £5.
IJ
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'm inclined to cut Morris a bit more slack. I suspect that he will have been invited onto the advisory board with the explicit proviso that he is not being asked to endorse Trump.
Robert Morris is fairly connected with other groups - like Charisma Magazine/Strang Publications - who have been pushing Trump quite heavily, so I don't necessarily agree with your evaluation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'm inclined to cut Morris a bit more slack. I suspect that he will have been invited onto the advisory board with the explicit proviso that he is not being asked to endorse Trump.
But this is naive in the extreme. I can't see any point of the board's existence being publicised except to use it as a tacit endorsement of Trump by leading evangelicals.
Disgraced Kansas City Prophet Paul Cain at least the good sense to observe that when it came to advising heads of government, the quieter you are about it, the further you get.
For there to be any hope of meaningful input the advice would have to be private.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose they won't be inviting Bill Maher to provide some kind of balance?
Might be interesting material to review in their home groups. OR --- they could invite a Mormon spokesperson, I suppose.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Not HTB, but this seemed the best thread to post the news that Bill Johnson, leader of Bethel church, Redding, California, has revealed he voted for Trump, outlining his reasons; quote:
he voted for Trump "with a good conscience", and "I believe the outcome is from the Lord"
In summary, for him DH issues trump social justice ones.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Oh, and Israel.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Trump won four out of five evangelical Christian votes. Whatever his appeal, it clearly over-rides the pussy grabbing and the foul mouth.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It was four out of five white evangelical voters, Brenda.
It's different across the pond. All the members of my local evo church, and other Christian friends from an evo background, who have posted on Facebook (and that's a lot of them) are completely horrified by the result.
I'm not sure what thought-world the majority of US white evangelical Christians inhabit but it sure aint mine, of that of my friends.
[ 11. November 2016, 16:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I regret saying that most Vietnamese Americans of my acquaintance voted for Trump. I asked one why and was told that someone (an internet source) told them Trump would protect Vietnam from China. I doubt he ever said word one on Vietnam, but they are terribly vulnerable to liars who spread wild stories, not having much familiarity with the reality of how US politics works.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's different across the pond. All the members of my local evo church, and other Christian friends from an evo background, who have posted on Facebook (and that's a lot of them) are completely horrified by the result.
I'm not sure your sample is representative. I suspect a lot of UK evos voted Leave for reasons that overlap with Trump voters. I also suspect not a few French evos will vote Marine Le Pen, again for similar reasons plus anti-Muslim sentiment.
On the one hand Johnson's revelation doesn't come as a surprise - mystical pro-Israel Charismatic sounds perfect for Trump propaganda - but it certainly gives the lie to that superficial laid-back Californian view I had of him. I wonder if John Wimber would have voted Trump?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
John Wimber would not have voted Trump. Jim Wallis did not vote Trump. Tony Campolo did not vote Trump.
But of course the last two are generally classified as "liberals" or even "socialists" in the conservative evangelical world.
My personal sample may not be at all representative! It's likely that I have a lot of "dodgy, liberal" friends. Probably some self selection going on.
Plus I wasn't surprised by Bill Johnson.
[ 11. November 2016, 17:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not HTB, but this seemed the best thread to post the news that Bill Johnson, leader of Bethel church, Redding, California, has revealed he voted for Trump, outlining his reasons; quote:
he voted for Trump "with a good conscience", and "I believe the outcome is from the Lord"
In summary, for him DH issues trump social justice ones.
Actually, following (almost) all the threads and posts about the Trump selection, I have had the question in my mind: What do SoF members think God has to do with any of it? Is this God's will?
Please be assured that the question is not posed in a cynical manner as I am as always interested in the discussion and the many interesting points of view.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What do SoF members think God has to do with any of it? Is this God's will?
I can't speak for anyone else, but my take is this:
The NT seems to accept the existence of authorities as God-given and generally encourages respect for them as better than anarchy. Christians are encouraged to live as responsible citizens. At the same time, there is precedent in both old and new testaments for non-violent protest against the authorities if obedience to them is seen as being in direct contradiction to obedience to God.
It is a big leap from there to seeing any particular candidate being elected as a direct outworking of God's specific will.
Bill Johnson's comments in this respect are ambiguous, I'd say.
He might be saying Trump was God's appointed candidate even before being elected; for a Christian actually saying that before the election, see here; I think most people on the Ship would put this approach very definitely in the fruitcake zone, but it probably goes some way to explaining that 80% of white evangelical voters.
On the other hand, he might simply be saying "well, since the guy has been elected, I now think it is God's will that he should be in power". Which for his constituency is not that different, ultimately, from the kind of thing Obama or Clinton have been saying to the general public about a peaceful handover.
[ 12. November 2016, 09:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Bill Johnson's comments in this respect are ambiguous, I'd say.
He might be saying Trump was God's appointed candidate even before being elected; for a Christian actually saying that before the election, see here;
I think they are less than ambiguous when it comes to the detail of his comment:
""I also found that accusation is a trick of the devil to create fear, thus manipulating peoples decision making process. I found that the devil himself is called the accuser, and that often times good people fall into that trap thinking they are doing the rest of us a good service by creating an evil image of someone when their perception is in itself wrong. Trump was never called a racist until he ran against Clinton.""
By implying that the devil is actively working against Trump, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that his statement is meant to give the impression that a vote for Trump is a vote for the will of God.
I must say that it doesn't surprise me; charismatics especially have a tendency to romanticise the strongman, possibly due to the dynamics of the movement. I remember much talk in church circles in the 80s and early 90s about how such-and-such right wing dictator was really a Christian.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Except that Johnson did say he voted for Trump. That's more than passive acquiescence. This furthermore suggests that, in his mind, dead horse issues trumps (sic) not only justice issues but character issues. By their fruits will you know them, in this case the rotten fruits of dubious business practice, self confessed sexual assault, lies, vile abuse of women, minorities and disabled people, insulting behaviour to those who have sacrificed all for their country, and just about any general behaviour which would be liable to bring discredit to the Gospel.
I have previously thought well of Johnson, in spite of the misgivings of others, but that is something of which I now repent.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Oh, I agree his stance as a whole is pretty unambiguous. But the particular comment SusanDoris highlighted is, and I think many Christians might say something like "the outcome is from the Lord" even if they did not approve of Trump.
I'm also seeing this whole thing increasingly as a conflict between empowerment and enfeeblement. It seems to me that the Republicans are seeking to preserve the status quo in terms of who has power, and keep the weak weak. One similarity between Johnson and HTB is that while there might be talk of empowerment, at the end of the day their supporters are beholden to their respective brands and thus enfeebled.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think the fact that the con-evos are prepared to claim that everything from rock music to d&d is from the devil points firmly to the idea that things they approve of coming from God and things they don't coming from elsewhere.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Eutychus
?Thank you for your reply. Will read again later, as I'm out this afternoon.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the fact that the con-evos are prepared to claim that everything from rock music to d&d is from the devil points firmly to the idea that things they approve of coming from God and things they don't coming from elsewhere.
For varying values of "God" and "elsewhere" I'd say that attitude is true of many, many, many groups.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
I'd still be surprised if more than a tiny number of HTB attendees are pro-Trump. My experience of HTB is that, at least at a congregational level, they are pretty "right on". Sure, they can be mocked because of the socio-economic monoculture (which is probably not really an accurate stereotype anyway), but the predominant political culture is a narrow band left and right of centre. Think Tony Blair here. I think there is a wide cross section of people invited to speak, from Orthodoxen and Catholics to people of the likes of Johnson. There, indeed, is a "brand", but it is far from being tied to the American right. For one thing, the vibe is much more English than that.
As an aside, I attended an evening service there which was being led by Johnson's brother and his wife. The pre-service atmosphere had been quite expectant, but by 20 minutes in, they had lost most of the Congo, as evidenced by the recourse to social media of pretty well all those sitting around me.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
One of the main speakers and chief prophet at my Leicester CoE char-evo megachurch, has taken down his let he who has eyes to hear support, for the candidate who cared more for the unborn than the born, from FaceBook, after I challenged it in my inimitable way.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Martin Saunders of Christian Today has made a fairly detailed and devastating response to Bill Johnson's apologia for voting for Trump.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
There's a local pastors' fraternal coming up in a couple of weeks that includes our local Bethel-inspired church. Should be interesting...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Martin Saunders of Christian Today has made a fairly detailed and devastating response to Bill Johnson's apologia for voting for Trump.
Thanks. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. 16% of white evangelicals voted for Hillary Clinton. Showing that, although a minority, there are still some independent-minded thinkers within that group.
Some may be in the same frame of mind as our good Shipmate cliffdweller. It is a moot point whether they should "stay in tent and piss out, rather than leave the tent and piss in". That community needs genuine prophetic voices. Using the standard OT example. Prophets challenge the wisdom and authority of kings and rulers.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Martin Saunders of Christian Today has made a fairly detailed and devastating response to Bill Johnson's apologia for voting for Trump.
Encouraging, at least in places. When will evangelicals disown deluded notjobs like Bill Johnson? His defence of Trump reads like one straight out of a Waco siege.
K.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When will evangelicals disown deluded notjobs like Bill Johnson? His defence of Trump reads like one straight out of a Waco siege.
That's the problem with evangelicalism. It isn't formed as an organisation like Anglicanism or Methodism is. You can't really kick someone out. We can state that we disagree with someone and try to "disown" them, but no one has the proprietary rights to the term 'evangelical'. And oftentimes, it can be quite tiresome trying to keep up with the list of so-called influential evangelicals (most of whom us Brits have never heard of) that we're supposed be denouncing.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Can Bethel lose its tax-exempt status for supporting a candidate?
K.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Martin Saunders of Christian Today has made a fairly detailed and devastating response to Bill Johnson's apologia for voting for Trump.
Encouraging, at least in places. When will evangelicals disown deluded notjobs like Bill Johnson? His defence of Trump reads like one straight out of a Waco siege.
K.
Personally, I am very happy to disown his defence of Trump, as is Martin Saunders. So evangelicals are disowning him, in the same way as Muslims are disowning IS. It's just that the nut jobs of whatever stripe are the ones that make news.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Martin Saunders of Christian Today has made a fairly detailed and devastating response to Bill Johnson's apologia for voting for Trump.
Encouraging, at least in places. When will evangelicals disown deluded notjobs like Bill Johnson? His defence of Trump reads like one straight out of a Waco siege.
K.
Personally, I am very happy to disown his defence of Trump, as is Martin Saunders. So evangelicals are disowning him, in the same way as Muslims are disowning IS. It's just that the nut jobs of whatever stripe are the ones that make news.
Thanks for that. It seems essential to me, that the zanier and politically dangerous end of the evangelical spectrum be marginalised—the the reasons you've already mentioned. The statistics are not encouraging regarding evangelical support for Trump. Here's hoping!
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Personally, I am very happy to disown his defence of Trump, as is Martin Saunders. So evangelicals are disowning him
Might I invite you to join the debate on precisely what evangelicals (or those with evangelical leanings) that feel the same way might own rather than disown, here?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Can Bethel lose its tax-exempt status for supporting a candidate?
K.
Theoretically, yes. The IRS does have regulations. In actuality? What I fear is that the Orange One will thwart any such move. But, of course, only in favor of his supporters.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I saw a Trump video on Facebook only today, from his campaign, in which he was pledging to do exactly the opposite (i.e. allow churches to support politicians without losing tax-exempt status).
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is directly contravening the Constitution (separation of church and state), but the Orange isn't very well versed in that document so no surprise. And I am willing to bet that with enforcement, where the rubber hits the road, there will be a distinct thumb on the scales.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Komensky - you seem to have a vendetta against Nicky Gumbell, do you know him personally and does the animosity flow out of that? or is it just that he is a high profile representative of a form of Christianity that you don't appreciate?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Komensky - you seem to have a vendetta against Nicky Gumbell, do you know him personally and does the animosity flow out of that? or is it just that he is a high profile representative of a form of Christianity that you don't appreciate?
I don't have a vendetta against him, no. I will, however, call out snakes in the grass. Should a C of E vicar be taking part in promoting political candidates at home or abroad? No. I will certainly write to HMRC to see that HTB is investigated for breaking the rules that determine tax-exempt status. This is not his first time.
To be honest, I think Nicky's support of Trump is not aimed so much as his own congregation, but rather at his American market. He has closely allied himself to snake-oil salesman Bill Johnson, who has written a lengthy piece (cited above) in defence of Trump and he voted for him. Nicky has long been courting the far right of the American con-evo scene; which is dangerous stuff.
K.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I saw a Trump video on Facebook only today, from his campaign, in which he was pledging to do exactly the opposite (i.e. allow churches to support politicians without losing tax-exempt status).
Oh dear. I wouldn't think that the office of the POTUS has the power to do that on its own though, right?
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm not a US legal expert, but I'd expect the Supreme Court to have something to say about it. Oh, wait...
Meanwhile, Johnson has issued a non-apology (warning, it's Charisma magazine, pop-ups inviting more of the Holy Spirit into your life...) for his statement.
It seems mostly to say "sorry that associates of mine caught flak for this" and admit some Christians might support Clinton, but I can't see him actually backing off the endorsement. The article seems to expect us to feel his pain...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Ugh. I had hoped you guys were safe from this over in Britain. What happened to that plan for Scotland to bar the Orange One from coming in? I'd move on that.
In the meantime an American Christian bails out. I've long held that the great folly of the faith in our generation is getting into bed with politicians. For pete's sake don't you guys do the same thing. We fought hard for our title of Stupidest Nation on Earth, you know. You can't top us; don't even try.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I adjusted the title to reflect the now broader scope of the thread.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I saw a Trump video on Facebook only today, from his campaign, in which he was pledging to do exactly the opposite (i.e. allow churches to support politicians without losing tax-exempt status).
Oh dear. I wouldn't think that the office of the POTUS has the power to do that on its own though, right?
K.
The regulations have always been enforced capriciously and politically. Under W, many con-evo churches did the sorts of things here-- explicitly handed out voter guides, etc. with no repercusions. Meanwhile, a local church that endorsed no candidate or position, but simply preached a sermon outlining a biblical argument vs. war in general, had to fight a 5- year battle to retain it's tax exemption.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I adjusted the title to reflect the now broader scope of the thread.
B62, Purg Host
Thanks. I think that will help the thread.
K.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I saw a Trump video on Facebook only today, from his campaign, in which he was pledging to do exactly the opposite (i.e. allow churches to support politicians without losing tax-exempt status).
Oh dear. I wouldn't think that the office of the POTUS has the power to do that on its own though, right?
K.
The regulations have always been enforced capriciously and politically. Under W, many con-evo churches did the sorts of things here-- explicitly handed out voter guides, etc. with no repercusions. Meanwhile, a local church that endorsed no candidate or position, but simply preached a sermon outlining a biblical argument vs. war in general, had to fight a 5- year battle to retain it's tax exemption.
Billy Graham, for example, took out full-page newspaper ads urging people to vote for Romney. There seems not to have been any consequences for that.
Does the 700 Club have tax-exempt status?
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Billy Graham, for example, took out full-page newspaper ads urging people to vote for Romney.
That I find surprising. Can you back this up?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Billy Graham, for example, took out full-page newspaper ads urging people to vote for Romney.
That I find surprising. Can you back this up?
I assume he was referring to this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/21/news/la-billy-graham-takes-ohio-newspaper-ad-backing-romney-20121021
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm surprised it was the father and not the son. I wonder if the father actually approved it?
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I've listened to Morris's talk at HTB now (call it taking one for the team ).
I was very chummy & friendly indeed, but politics wasn't mentioned either directly or indirectly. Lots of lovely stories about God giving Morris a jet, and so forth.
However, I do think there's an issue to be answered in terms of being careful who you associate with. Right back on p1, it was suggested that this is just HTB trying to get in with the powerful, and that it's naivity rather than anything more sinister. And so it seemed - they seemed to be basking in the reflected glory of having such a Big Cheese coming to speak, and to promote his book at their church.
And yet. And yet. Morris's name was published on the list of Trumps evangelical advisory committee back in July. The interview takes place way after Trump's comments about women, Mexicans, disabled people, not paying his taxes etc are widely known, and there's no mention of any role his advisors might have, even tangentially.
Also - Gumbel (who the atheist husband recognised as "Argh! It's the man in the jumper!") says that Morris's church have supported HTB & supported alpha. How they have done so is not discussed. I'm going to try to ask them.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I figured my chance of asking clergy directly on the phone was slim, so I've emailed....
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm surprised it was the father and not the son. I wonder if the father actually approved it?
Yes, I had much the same thought when I saw the story initially, and would tend to give BG the benefit of the doubt.
The underlying issue is still the same though - wrt a religious organisation pushing a political agenda, though I suppose the argument would be that the advert was about 'values' and not any one particular candidate and was in some way personal rather than organisational.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I figured my chance of asking clergy directly on the phone was slim, so I've emailed....
HTB has already had outspoken Trump supporters in the shape of Bill and Beni Johnson. I don't see how inviting Morris could, in any way, be seen as a politically neutral act.
K.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
I was very chummy & friendly indeed, but politics wasn't mentioned either directly or indirectly. Lots of lovely stories about God giving Morris a jet, and so forth.
He's like the Mel Smith vicar in the 'Not The Nine O'Clock News' sketch. 'The Devil, Is He All Bad'. The Smith character's line, you will recall, was: "'Less of the 'Get Thee Behind Me Satan' and more of the come into the kitchen me old mate, and have a cup of tea". Presumably this guy is "less of the 'You cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon' and more "Come into the kitchen, me old mate Mammon and have a glass of this rather exquisite Chateau Lafite '69".
They are just making this stuff up as they go on, aren't they?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I figured my chance of asking clergy directly on the phone was slim, so I've emailed....
HTB has already had outspoken Trump supporters in the shape of Bill and Beni Johnson. I don't see how inviting Morris could, in any way, be seen as a politically neutral act.
K.
And Brian and Jenn Johnson too, if it comes to it. But I'm not sure it's exactly cozying up to the American Right. HTB have Catholics and Orthodoxen speaking at their events. No-one thinks they are in some secret pact to restore papal rule, though.
Komensky, I know from your previous posting that you are very familiar with HTB. Have you any direct evidence that there is a desire to support those with a right wing agenda, as opposed to the sort of general goodwill towards those with a similar theological (rather than political) outlook. Hell, I went to see Brian and Jenn Johnson (I happened to be in town at the same time; for the record I thought they were vacuuous - worship by numbers), and though I'm a fully paid-up,card carrying charismatic, I'm more Tony Benn than Tony Blair in political terms, much less a fellow-traveller with the Trumpite (or more significantly Pence-ite) tendency.
My impression, based on a much less intimate knowledge of the HTB leadership than yours, is that NG and co have been, quietly, distancing themselves from their former positions under Sandy Millar, particularly on the licitness of same-sex intimate relationships. This seems an unlikely way to curry favour amongst American culture warriors.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
HTB have Catholics and Orthodoxen speaking at their events. No-one thinks they are in some secret pact to restore papal rule, though.
My own feeling is not that they are necessarily right-wing, but they tend to quite like associations with power.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
HTB have Catholics and Orthodoxen speaking at their events. No-one thinks they are in some secret pact to restore papal rule, though.
My own feeling is not that they are necessarily right-wing, but they tend to quite like associations with power.
Yes, I think that's right. Specifically, that they want to influence those in power. Witness Ken Costa's influence in the City. It's a bit like the Bash camps, brought up to date.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That is very much what it is. Eww.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Well, yes and no. There is nothing specifically wrong in trying to influence people. Everyone does it all the time, and especially those who believe that they have a positive truth they want to share. The problem is, who is running who? It's quite clear, istm, that in the States, is a small number of, put frankly, evil people with a lot of money and a lot at stake, are running many, maybe a majority of USA evos for all they are worth.
Do I think this is what's happening at HTB? No, but I really hope Nicky Gumbel has an awfully long spoon.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
I was very chummy & friendly indeed, but politics wasn't mentioned either directly or indirectly. Lots of lovely stories about God giving Morris a jet, and so forth.
He's like the Mel Smith vicar in the 'Not The Nine O'Clock News' sketch. 'The Devil, Is He All Bad'. The Smith character's line, you will recall, was: "'Less of the 'Get Thee Behind Me Satan' and more of the come into the kitchen me old mate, and have a cup of tea". Presumably this guy is "less of the 'You cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon' and more "Come into the kitchen, me old mate Mammon and have a glass of this rather exquisite Chateau Lafite '69".
They are just making this stuff up as they go on, aren't they?
I'd never seen that sketch, so I'm glad I went to look for it! Thank you. Yes, the interview is awful. I was washing up so at least it wasn't half an hour of my life utterly lost. The plane, though, you must understand, came from God for the ministry . Not for personal use, oh no. And - wait - it was provided by a donor just after Morris & his missus had sold their cars because God had told them to. Fancy that!
And he double tithes, you know. He's not saying that just to show off. He just drops it into conversation.
Komensky - I didn't know the history of other Trump supporting visiting speakers. So, a random email from not-a-church-member is unlikely to be met with a positive response.
I used to worship at an HTB affiliated church. I am so so glad I'm out of there.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I'm going to end up before a faceless Jack Chick God, aren't I, and be told: "You corrupted Jemima the 9th, didn't you". I'm not sure my "On the plus side, I've read the Prophecy of Habakuk" is going to cut it. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, yes and no. There is nothing specifically wrong in trying to influence people.
At uni I rubbed shoulders with people who went to Iwerne, the successor to Bash camp. It took a while to realise that this was very much something one had to come from a certain background to be eligible for, and from which one was selected with the deliberate agenda of placing CoE evangelicals within handy reach of the corridors of power.
I admit to being really conflicted about this.
Some of those people seem to have turned out to be fine, godly, and upstanding, and yes, in certain situations it's nice to have someone with a bit of clout on your side.
But I can't help think that the whole thing runs so counter to the way the Kingdom of God is supposed to work, and is in danger of being corrupted by politics.
Joseph didn't get to have Pharaoh's ear by going to the right schools. He got there because God put him there.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Moses on the other hand had been to the right school.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Yes, but no-one planned to send him there except God!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
But not because Mummy and Daddy put his name down for it.
(x-post)
[ 17. November 2016, 21:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, yes and no. There is nothing specifically wrong in trying to influence people. Everyone does it all the time, and especially those who believe that they have a positive truth they want to share. The problem is, who is running who?
There is nothing wrong in the abstract about trying to influence people. The reality of it is much more sticky though and prone to a kind of 'regulatory capture'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
HTB have Catholics and Orthodoxen speaking at their events.
Sadly there are numerous Orthodoxen to back any position, no matter how extreme. We're like the converse of Poe's law.
Or as a friend responded to someone gushing that an Orthodox (Priebus) was on Trump's cabinet, "Rasputin and Stalin were Orthodox too, and how did that work out?"
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
HTB have Catholics and Orthodoxen speaking at their events.
Sadly there are numerous Orthodoxen to back any position, no matter how extreme. We're like the converse of Poe's law.
Or as a friend responded to someone gushing that an Orthodox (Priebus) was on Trump's cabinet, "Rasputin and Stalin were Orthodox too, and how did that work out?"
You think you have some disreputable Orthodoxen? Hehe. This is one area where we evangelicals have you beat many, many times over. You may do a lot of things well, but bat-crazy ideologues? No one does that better than we do.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm going to end up before a faceless Jack Chick God, aren't I, and be told: "You corrupted Jemima the 9th, didn't you". I'm not sure my "On the plus side, I've read the Prophecy of Habakuk" is going to cut it.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
I'm utterly corrupted and happy that way! That would look good on a t shirt, come to that...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Komensky, I know from your previous posting that you are very familiar with HTB. Have you any direct evidence that there is a desire to support those with a right wing agenda, as opposed to the sort of general goodwill towards those with a similar theological (rather than political) outlook.
I've been out of the direct HTB loop for around eight years, so I can't speak with any great insider's authority. From what I know of NG and his outlook, he is very conservative (people should not have good friends of the opposite sex, for starters—not even 'tennis coaches' [now there's South Ken approach!] and he believes the future of evangelical movements is in the US mega-church sphere. Have a look at who he invites to speak at HTB and to the Leadership Conference. Sure, he has some RC and Orthodox friends, but they are a minority. There is another important factor in his approach and that is to accept anyone who professes Jesus Christ. It is this latter category where he steadfastly refuses to discern good from bad (he openly supports the loony-tune fringe of Todd Bentley and co. Mark Driscoll, Bill Johnson, Rich Warren, etc.). His Kingdom [Now] Theology is mixed together with conservative Calvinism (frequently flip-flopping between determinism and free will), which is topped with a thin layer of CoE icing. He is really not that bothered about truthfulness with facts if he believes that the Kingdom can be furthered. There were outright liars who gave fake testimonies for the Alpha Course. Once this was discovered by NG, he usually pulled the speaker from future occasions, but never offered public admissions and/or apologies. He happily repeats lies, for example, about Einstein's belief in God, even when he knows such claims to be false. It furthers the Kingdom—full stop. That brings us back to his support for Trump.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My impression, based on a much less intimate knowledge of the HTB leadership than yours, is that NG and co have been, quietly, distancing themselves from their former positions under Sandy Millar, particularly on the licitness of same-sex intimate relationships. This seems an unlikely way to curry favour amongst American culture warriors.
There were some signs of that position shifting, but now he merely guards his language about it. Someone from the Grauniad told me that he will no longer do interviews where issues of homosexuality are raised. NG maintains many of Millar's hardline positions (as above about friends of the opposite sex, he echoes J-John's insistence on not dating people out of the faith, not having boyfriends/girlfriends even sleep under the same roof until they are married, not taking boyfriends/girlfriends on holiday). Using the language 'same-sex attraction' is merely homophobia in a cozy jumper. The other part of NG's close relationship with the far-right US evangelicals is the prosperity gospel. My partner and I spotted this trend not long after NG's takeover after Millar's departure.
I do not think that NG speaks for all of his congo—that should be obvious. As to why his own position is more hardline than that of most of the C of E and, I would guess, most of his own flock, is worthy of further consideration.
This is depressing me.
K.
[fixed code]
[ 18. November 2016, 11:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
There is another angle we ought to address/admit. I suspect I would congratulate a member of clergy who spoke against Trump's bigotry and hateful rhetoric—but perhaps that also crosses the line as far as the tax-exempt status goes?
K.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think the challenge for Christians of all persuasions is to resist being enslaved to partisan politics, either for or against, especially along the lines defined by the right as hot-button topics. As Martin60 has recently argued on another thread, our priorities should be elsewhere.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I must say that it doesn't surprise me; charismatics especially have a tendency to romanticise the strongman, possibly due to the dynamics of the movement.
This I don't get. How does it chime with:
quote:
Originally posted by St Paul:
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Or even:
quote:
Originally posted by one of the Isaiahs
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth
[ 18. November 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think it comes from the concept of "anointed leadership", especially prevalent in charismatic/new church settings, plus a confusion, especially in "God's own country", between the promised land of the OT and the US*. The OT kings, prophets, and royal court are taken as archetypes.
==
*Over this side of the pond this goes along the slightly different lines of "the Christian heritage of our nation", which in France at least is a dog-whistle for anti-immigration/anti-Islam policies.
[ 18. November 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
IME the concept of "conquering by His own defeat" (pace Michael Card) is a notion with plenty of traction amongst many charos. Make of it what you will.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There used to be a bunch of musclemen charismatic/conservative Christians whose signature move was blowing up hotwater bottles until they (the hotwater bottle) exploded. It was quite entertaining.
I wonder what happened to them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
IME the concept of "conquering by His own defeat" (pace Michael Card) is a notion with plenty of traction amongst many charos. Make of it what you will.
Wasn't that Benny Hinn's soteriology?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I must say that it doesn't surprise me; charismatics especially have a tendency to romanticise the strongman, possibly due to the dynamics of the movement.
This I don't get. How does it chime with:
The cynical tl;dr answer is that they ignore the second part of 1Cor12:31, and emphasise the first part.
The more extensive answer is that once the emphasis is on supernatural gifts, the mantle of authority ends up following those with the most visible and flashy gifts - who often tend to be the naturally charismatic to start with.
Add to that the theology of 'prophet, priest and king' that Eutychus describes above, and you have the conditions for the lionisation of power, and secular power can always be described in terms of Cyrus.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't see the problem. Some emphasise on thing, others another. Some see "muscular Christianity" modelled after the great warriors like David and Samson, some see models of ephereal Christianity after Ezekial etc some see models of non-violent radicalism after Daniel's friends in the furnace etc.
That's the most maddening thing about the OT, you tend to see in it whatever you want to see.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
IME the concept of "conquering by His own defeat" (pace Michael Card) is a notion with plenty of traction amongst many charos. Make of it what you will.
Wasn't that Benny Hinn's soteriology?
Jurgen Moltmann, I think, originally, but I think it's a favourite theme of Frederick Beuchner as well. I doubt Mr Hinn is very keen on it. I think the original quote is to the effect that God is never so powerful than when he shows his vulnerability in the helplessness of Jesus on the cross.
[ 18. November 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There used to be a bunch of musclemen charismatic/conservative Christians whose signature move was blowing up hotwater bottles until they (the hotwater bottle) exploded. It was quite entertaining.
I wonder what happened to them.
They missed the bit in parentheses.
All a bit messy really.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't have a vendetta against him, no. I will, however, call out snakes in the grass. Should a C of E vicar be taking part in promoting political candidates at home or abroad? No. I will certainly write to HMRC to see that HTB is investigated for breaking the rules that determine tax-exempt status. This is not his first time. ....
I agree with you. I don't personally approve of clergy espousing party politics from the pulpit, but for a different reason. By implication it could be construed as unchurching those who disagree with them.
Even on that, IMHO there are rare exceptions. I've commented before on these threads, that I've come to the conclusion that, very rare though it is that one can say such a thing, to have voted for Trump is not just stupid, immature, naive or unwise, but does actually tip over into being a sin.
Nevertheless, Komensky, it might be worth checking first that you aren't confusing US and English and Welsh law there (I don't know about Scotland. Charities work slightly differently there). Besides, the whole area of clergy engaging in politics is much more unclear than that. There is a clergyman who is a Police Commissioner carrying a Labour Party label. I think he's retired from being an incumbent, but I suspect is still licensed. He was, in earlier years a city councillor in a major UK city. What is more I discovered recently that back in the sixties, Bristol had a Lord Mayor who was a Labour Councillor, a reverend and rector of a parish in the city.
I don't think that has any effect on the charitable status of parish funds - and I don't think it should. After all, the church treasurer can't restrain the Reverend if he or she goes off on some oratorical jolly of their own. It's more a question whether it is or could be a disciplinary matter for the clergyperson concerned.
Or would you regard that as OK if they take up politics for the same party as the one you usually vote for - but not otherwise?
More generally, though, it isn't only clergy on the evangelical wing who have sometimes had an over-close relationship and appeared to have shown undue admiration for people in power. Right back to ancient Israel and Judah, kings could always find priests and prophets (usually condemned as false ones) to cosy up to them. In the C18-19 everyone took it for granted that Prime Ministers would fill episcopal vacancies with Whig or Tory bishops. More recently, Cosmo Gordon Lang was no evangelical. Nor were Geoffrey Fisher.or any of the other political Archbishops of that era. Neither the RCC nor the Orthodox Churches have been that reluctant to cuddle up with the powerful, including some very dodgy examples. It would have been even harder for the RCC to avoid doing when being Pope did not just make you head of state of a postage stamp sized enclave, but a swathe of territory across central Italy.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've come to the conclusion that, very rare though it is that one can say such a thing, to have voted for Trump is not just stupid, immature, naive or unwise, but does actually tip over into being a sin.
Worthy of the Quotes file, and 'twill be my new signature, I think.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with you. I don't personally approve of clergy espousing party politics from the pulpit, but for a different reason. By implication it could be construed as unchurching those who disagree with them.
There is a clergyman who is a Police Commissioner carrying a Labour Party label. I think he's retired from being an incumbent, but I suspect is still licensed. He was, in earlier years a city councillor in a major UK city. What is more I discovered recently that back in the sixties, Bristol had a Lord Mayor who was a Labour Councillor, a reverend and rector of a parish in the city.
I don't think that has any effect on the charitable status of parish funds - and I don't think it should. After all, the church treasurer can't restrain the Reverend if he or she goes off on some oratorical jolly of their own. It's more a question whether it is or could be a disciplinary matter for the clergyperson concerned.
Personally, I'd distinguish between the office and the man in all such cases - and yes, if the rev went off on an oratorical tangent whilst acting in their official capacity as cleryperson then that's something I would disagree with no matter what the politics.
The problem arises in this case due to the evangelical celebrity culture - which equally applies in the case of Robert Morris being chosen (presumably Trump wouldn't pick a bunch of nonentities who happened to be pastor of Second PCA church of Peoria, etc.) as part of the 'evangelical council' as to NG, SM and others. [Of course it could arise due to the other factors as you mention]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've come to the conclusion that, very rare though it is that one can say such a thing, to have voted for Trump is not just stupid, immature, naive or unwise, but does actually tip over into being a sin.
Worthy of the Quotes file, and 'twill be my new signature, I think.
I am honoured. Thank you.
I probably ought to say, though, that although I think they would make it too long to be a sig, the words 'very rare though it is that one can say such a thing', are also a fundamental part of what I think. I'm not sure that I can think of any other electoral event in recent years that I've known anything about in respect of which this conclusion could be deduced.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Enoch
More recently, Cosmo Gordon Lang was no evangelical. Nor were Geoffrey Fisher.or any of the other political Archbishops of that era.
Well they were political, no doubt about that, but I think they were (in at least their own eyes) more about speaking truth to power than cosying up to powerbrokers; more an authentic prophetic voice than a false one. I can understand that one might consider them ill advised or wrong, if one were of a different political persuasion, but I think that they were fairly uncompromising in speaking out the biblical truth as they understood it, regardless of fear or favour.
[ 19. November 2016, 08:25: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well they were political, no doubt about that, but I think they were (in at least their own eyes) more about speaking truth to power than cosying up to powerbrokers; more an authentic prophetic voice than a false one. I can understand that one might consider them ill advised or wrong, if one were of a different political persuasion, but I think that they were fairly uncompromising in speaking out the biblical truth as they understood it, regardless of fear or favour.
Are you sure of that? Most of the time, part of what the role of being an establishment bishop has been understood to be has been to massage the consciences of those in power and to endorse them in the eyes of the rest of us.
Partly, how you see this may depends on how you view the coup in 1936. As it happens, I think the outcome was the right one. I agree with it. But I recognise that for those that didn't, the Archbishop's role could look very dodgy. His speech broadcast on 13th December 1936 is quoted against him to this day.
[ 19. November 2016, 10:38: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
On a slightly tangential note; it appears that Steve Bannon chairman of Breitbart and Trump's new chief of staff was invited to speak at an event in the Vatican a couple of years ago:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world
The connection to the topic, is that there have long been factions within the RCC hierarchy who have also embraced right-wing ideologues, as long as they pay lip service to religion.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
The RC church is just as quick as the con-evo's to jump into bed with the powerful. The RC church has the advantage of a greater sense of coherence and integral structure, whereas the con-evo groups are largely independent of one another and/or loosely related through more informal networks (which can more easily be disavowed if things look ugly to the public).
Goebbels was only excommunicated from the RC church for marrying a protestant, not for his role in war crimes or mass murder of Jews. #howitworks
K.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Goebbels was only excommunicated from the RC church for marrying a protestant, not for his role in war crimes or mass murder of Jews. #howitworks
The RCC had been officially and with impunity killing Jews for a thousand years. Nothing new.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In summary, for him DH issues trump social justice ones.
I think that it is even simpler than that.
The best description is from the book "Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars - Even When they Lose Elections."
This is purely and simply a conservative/liberal event. Evangelicals voted with the conservatives out of concern for liberal trends.
This is the normal back and forth of social evolution. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Goebbels was only excommunicated from the RC church for marrying a protestant, not for his role in war crimes or mass murder of Jews. #howitworks
The RCC had been officially and with impunity killing Jews for a thousand years. Nothing new.
Links please.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The RC church is just as quick as the con-evo's to jump into bed with the powerful. The RC church has the advantage of a greater sense of coherence and integral structure, whereas the con-evo groups are largely independent of one another and/or loosely related through more informal networks (which can more easily be disavowed if things look ugly to the public).
Goebbels was only excommunicated from the RC church for marrying a protestant, not for his role in war crimes or mass murder of Jews. #howitworks
K.
True.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Bingo.
K.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Goebbels was only excommunicated from the RC church for marrying a protestant, not for his role in war crimes or mass murder of Jews. #howitworks
The RCC had been officially and with impunity killing Jews for a thousand years. Nothing new.
Links please.
Link
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0