|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do evangelicals love or hate their Jesus?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think Christians often find it easier to refer to more concrete, pragmatic reasons for their engagement than a desire to be 'Christlike'. This may be particularly so if their food banks and other social projects are partly funded by the state, and where there are employees or volunteers who may not be committed Christians.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
No prophet is confusing vaguely centre-left-wing "European" politics with the gospel. And he is pissed off that Evangelicals purportedly confuse vaguely centre-right-wing "American" politics with the gospel.
And that is the problem with Christianity in the United States. Our political identities are more important than our identity as Christians. Therefore, the gospel must be synonymous with our political opinions.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am starting to feel somewhat reassured by some of your erudite responses. I cannot abide the disregard for others that I was exposed to so blatantly and strongly. I need reassurance that it is 'others first', not selfishly 'my salvation first'. I also need to figure out how to say something, anything at all with the least amount of politeness, and not just listen, go for very very brisk walks, and find little bits of distracting activity: round 2 starts in 3 weeks when they return for another week.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly heretical.
I wish it was hysterical.
I fear American evangelicals more than I fear nuclear war. There's no reasoning with them, you either play along or run and hide.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
No prophet is confusing vaguely centre-left-wing "European" politics with the gospel. And he is pissed off that Evangelicals purportedly confuse vaguely centre-right-wing "American" politics with the gospel.
And that is the problem with Christianity in the United States. Our political identities are more important than our identity as Christians. Therefore, the gospel must be synonymous with our political opinions.
Can you explain why political identity is so important to Christians in the USA? In England (if not in the rest of the UK) people are frequently weary of politics and politicians. There's not much expectation from Christians that politicians are going to stand up for any particular religious perspective.
American society has continued to secularise, and it exports its secular pop culture around the world. It's hard to see what American evangelicals gain from cuddling up to politicians, although I suppose I can understand the ones who seek political office themselves.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can you explain why political identity is so important to Christians in the USA? In England (if not in the rest of the UK) people are frequently weary of politics and politicians. There's not much expectation from Christians that politicians are going to stand up for any particular religious perspective.
Again, as has been said already, for the majority of American evangelicals, political identity is NOT so important. It is a large, obnoxious minority that makes it seem that way.
As mentioned before, "activism" has always been one of the four cornerstones of evangelicalism. That has played itself out differently in different places & times. Often it has been seen primarily as verbal evangelism. As shown in the prior Magnuson source, in the 2nd Great Awakening it was played out in a significant way in political activism directed toward progressive, left-wing social justice efforts, as opposed to the right-wing reactionary causes so associated (however stereotypically) with American evangelicalism today.
The origin of that right-ward swing would be the rise of the pro-life movement in the 1970s and 80s. Tragically that movement early on tied their efforts both to political/legislative efforts to outlaw abortion (and in some cases contraception). The real fatal decision there was to tie their effort closely to the Republican party. Jim Wallis details this well in God Politics. and how this turned out more than one generation of single-issue voters who were willing to look the other way as the GOP engaged in increasingly more morally egregious behavior, pledging full support as long as the party continued to give lip service to the pro-life movement.
The really tragic part of the whole sordid episode IMHO is the (to me obvious) reality that the leadership of the GOP couldn't give two figs about abortion or unborn babies. They clearly want to keep abortion legal so that they can continue to use it as a wedge issue to get all these single-issue voters. Abortion rates in the US have fallen whenever there were progressive Democratic presidents, despite their pro-choice stances, and risen under supposedly pro-life GOP presidents, because progressive policies like health care, child care, and contraception coverage are precisely the things that give women the tools needed to avoid unwanted pregnancies or carry a pregnancy to term.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Just to add to the din, this sounds like an American cultural issue. For all my gripes with British evangelicals, social justice is usually top of their agenda—and that is a real strength of theirs. A large number of British evangelicals are lefties and even socialists. I can remember one American woman being taken aback when she saw that the church cafe sold only Fair Trade products: 'isn't that socialist?!', she blurted out. I think there's a nuanced discussion to be had—and I certainly share your outrage—but I think at least some of things you are bringing up are part of right-wing American culture shone through some bizarre evangelical prism.
I'd put it this way: American evangelics will spend lots of money to supply poor people with bibles, whereas most of the evangelicals in the UK would first see that they are fed, have access to housing and education first and foremost. God—I sound like I almost like them!
K.
Again, I think even with the American descriptor that is inaccurate. American evangelicals are among the largest contributors to food banks and other global causes that are addressing poverty and other social justice issues.
Of course, we can be part of the problem too, when we unthinkingly embrace political stances at odds with that (see above). But to suggest that American evangelicals don't care about social justice is simply inaccurate. Although some may not like the term "social justice", which is often confused with the early Social Gospel Movement which tended to bifurcate American evangelicalism.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can you explain why political identity is so important to Christians in the USA?
Because it always has been.
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, as has been said already, for the majority of American evangelicals, political identity is NOT so important. It is a large, obnoxious minority that makes it seem that way.
Political identity is more important to mainline Christians as well. I don't know if it is a majority or minority of them. They are equally obnoxious.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Was Archbishop Camara wrong?
As proponent of liberation theology - obviously, yes. It is hard to imagine a greater corruption of faith than mixing the gospel with Marxism, the ideology that has killed more Christians than any other. Admittedly, this corruption was usually driven by good intentions. But this just makes liberation theology tragic, not true.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think politics and faith are distinct categories, nor do I think you think that.
Of course they are distinct categories. They may overlap in determining particular issues, of course. And then it is necessary to understand their proper relationship to each other.
Much of modern Christianity has fallen exactly into the Jewish trap, and is now thinking of Christ as messiah in the worldly sense. The difference is merely that nationalism has been replaced by humanism, as an echo of the Christian focus on charity. That's a change for the better, but it still is not the truth. Christ is not a king of this world, and He is not the Prime Minister or a Supreme Court Justice either.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a point where the exercise of charity will, inevitably, move people into questions normally seen as political.
The only point where this is necessarily so is where moral principle dominates the issue. On an issue like abortion, for example, moral strictures determine justice and policy firstly, and prudence then is needed only for organising the efficient, fair and reasonable execution. However, much of the political decision space is not determined by moral principle in such a simple manner. There exists a reasonable but wide variety of opinion, for example, on how economic activity should best be organised in a community. And arguably that question does not even have a single answer true for all places and every time. Christianity can only properly critique these matters precisely where they shade into immorality (or, sometimes, anti-faith). One can for example critique exploitative capitalism - but as exploitative, not really as capitalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Echoing Archbishop Camara's well known saying, the radical evangelical Jim Wallis observed that Christians are often very good about rescuing drowning people from rivers; not necessarily so good at asking the question who is pushing them in upstream.
Yes. Such Christians are doing it right, and ++Camara & Wallis (according to you) are wrong. Christianity knows about the fall, and hence knows that all human striving for utopia - like for example that proposed in the name of Marx - just ends up generating even more human misery and corpses.
The proper Christian answer is that of the ant. Do it local, do it now, do it one on one. Ants have no master plan, they are simple creatures following simple rules and interact with what is before them, including other ants if present. And yet, the emergent ant hill behaviour is amazingly complex, adaptable and efficient.
Mind you, if you have great ideas about how to make society a better place, then you can go and realise them as you might. All Christianity says to that is good luck, and hopefully you have thought it through (prudentially). But do not attribute such political activism to somebody who completely failed to engage with "structures of injustice" that were much, much more obvious than ours in any other way than by a call to self-reform, honest piety, and immediate charity.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It may of course be that you see faults in the movement known as Catholic Liberation Theology (of which Archbishop Camara was an advocate). So I'm wondering if you could extend your critique in that direction.
Liberation Theology is a dishonest attempt to harness faith for political means. It is dishonest because it does not admit to what it is doing, it does not admit that it is an ideology utilising faith for its ulterior purposes. Mind you, I can see the good intentions behind this. I can even see why the picked their ideology (hindsight is 20/20 on 20thC "communism"). Still, it is not even remotely acceptable. It is basically like the "prosperity gospel", the mirror image corruption of faith building on capitalistic greed.
Anyway, I consider the gospel as a call to be more ant-like. Precisely eschew the grand political plans - or if you pursue them, pursue them with your brains, but don't pretend that that is following Christ as such. The Jewish establishment and the Romans were wrong to kill Christ as a potential direct threat to their powers. It's not like that. Christianity is not revolutionary, it is subversive not by attacking the system but by changing the people that make up the system; any system of human devising, which always falls short. That way, actual Christianity remains subversive, today in Western democracies as much as in Roman antiquity. People like to think big, because they think that they are clever enough to understand and predict the systems of which they are part. They should think ants.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
It is hard to imagine a greater corruption of faith than mixing the gospel with Marxism
Mixing the the gospel with Objectivism isn't much better.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree with what IngoB has said. I don't often find myself saying that. I think he's saying something useful and important.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am starting to feel somewhat reassured by some of your erudite responses. I cannot abide the disregard for others that I was exposed to so blatantly and strongly. I need reassurance that it is 'others first', not selfishly 'my salvation first'. I also need to figure out how to say something, anything at all with the least amount of politeness, and not just listen, go for very very brisk walks, and find little bits of distracting activity: round 2 starts in 3 weeks when they return for another week.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly heretical.
I wish it was hysterical.
Well, it's hysterical too (if you mean by that, funny in a despairing sort of way). My late professor of religion used to collect clips of the prosperity "name it and claim it" preachers and show them to our class. Equal parts laughter and wincing.
As for how you can respond to your extended family (much much MUCH sympathy on that one
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ):
It sucks because no doubt some of your IMMEDIATE family is closely invested in keeping the relationship with these bozos. And you don't need more fights.
If your immediate family connection is okay with it, you can challenge it directly. Or indirectly using one of the methods below.
1) When they start up, get up pointedly and leave the room. Claim an obviously un-necessary to do at that moment errand.
2) Open your eyes wide and with faux ingenuousness, say, "I never heard that. I thought the Bible said X" and let the fur fly.
3) Pre-empt the whole thing by going off on an enthusiastic description of the soup kitchen project (or whatever--fill in as appropriate) you're personally involved in, and how this is really helping you fulfill what Jesus was talking about and giving you growth in your spiritual life. Note: this only works if they have basic "do not interrupt, do not flatly contradict" manners drilled into them.
4) the minute someone starts, forcibly change the topic in a very pointed but polite manner by turning to the nearest sports enthusiast and saying, "Well, how about them Cardinals?" (fill in local team)
5) Tell them that what they said last time really got you thinking and you delved into your Bible, and hey, look at this great passage (pick something out of Amos or Jesus' preaching that totally contradicts their views) and "Thank you so much, my eyes have really been opened!" as if they were entirely in agreement with the passage you just read. Deliberate misunderstanding is a mighty tool for shutting people up.
6) Say, "You know, with your interest in these topics, I thought it would be really great if you got to come with us to our local (soup kitchen, ESL class, house painting project, whatever) and I talked to our (pastor, ministry team) and they are so looking forward to seeing you!" Cultivate a look of bland enthusiasm.
7) If all else fails, write a letter to the chief offender under the principle "speaking the truth in love." Have your nearest and dearest vet it before you send it to be sure you've covered the "in love" bit.
I am sorry to say that I've been forced to use these techniques on my own relatives quite a lot. We've finally reached a state of detente. They don't (yet!) agree with me, but they know better than to hassle me on this stuff.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for how you can respond to your extended family (much much MUCH sympathy on that one
):
ditto. While (fortunately, I guess) that doesn't describe my immediate family (they're all more of the "spiritual-but-not-religious" variety, for better or worse) it does describe my "tribe"-- my people. As a left wing evangelical, they remind me of the backwards awkward uncle we all have who gets drunk and makes racist jokes but you gotta invite him to Thanksgiving dinner cuz he's family. So in some small way I can share your pain-- and embarrassment.
I love Lamb Chopped's wisdom, there's much there that will be useful-- for me as well as I deal with my fellow evangelicals who dabble in this side of the theological woods.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm considering making up something like "but 2nd Fluoridations says .... " or maybe the 13th letter of Judas to the Refrigerators.
As for Marxism etc, the problem is the attachment to any "-ism" I think.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
On the Catholic tangent.
IngoB
There is much in what you say with which I agree. But I think your distinction between an individual ant-like pursuit and adherence to grand political plans is too binary.
There are dangers of corruption in political activity, but there are dangers of corruption in just about any walk of life with a social or economic dimension. We try to use our brains wittily, recognising at all times who it is we seek to serve.
Here, from the Wiki article on Oscar Romero, is a summary which illustrates some of the wit involved.
quote:
According to Jesús Delgado, his biographer and Postulator of the Cause for his canonization, Romero agreed with the Catholic vision of Liberation Theology and not with the Marxist vision: “A journalist once asked him: ‘Do you agree with Liberation Theology’ And Romero answered: “Yes, of course. However, there are two theologies of liberation. One is that which sees liberation only as material liberation. The other is that of Paul VI. I am with Paul VI.”
[snip]
Romero preached that “The most profound social revolution is the serious, supernatural, interior reform of a Christian.” He also emphasized: "The liberation of Christ and of His Church is not reduced to the dimension of a purely temporal project. It does not reduce its objectives to an anthropocentric perspective: to a material well-being or to initiatives of a political or social, economic or cultural order, only. Much less can it be a liberation that supports or is supported by violence.” Romero expressed several times his disapproval for the Marxist inspired Liberation Theology. On a sermon preached on 11 November 1979, he said: "The other day, one of the persons who proclaims liberation in a political sense was asked: ‘For you, what is the meaning of the Church’?" He said that the activist "answered with these scandalous words: ‘There are two churches, the church of the rich and the church of the poor. We believe in the church of the poor but not in the church of the rich’." Romero declared, "Clearly these words are a form of demagogy and I will never admit a division of the Church."
Not all Catholic Liberation theology is Marxist-inspired. Here is Pope Francis' observation re Archbishop Romero.
quote:
Pope Francis stated during Romero's beatification that "His ministry was distinguished by a particular attention to the most poor and marginalized."
He did not limit his actions to pastoral care. His broadcast sermons challenged the torture and repression in El Salvador. He challenged publicly the political authorities responsible for these evils. He was not assassinated because of his particular pastoral attention to the poor and marginalised.
There are aspects of his theology with which I feel uncomfortable, but not that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Barnabas62, you have switched from Helder Câmara to Óscar Romero now. It is hardly fair to then go on about how there are different theologies of liberation. Well, yes, there are. But Câmara is a representative of the clearly Marxist side of things. Whereas Romero may have been a hero to some liberation theologians, but was actually under the spiritual direction of Opus Dei. See the links above. If you count Joesmaria Escriva's "Way" as theology of liberation, then I for one have no problem with people following that.
Anyway, I think one of the better emphases of Vatican II was to point out that the laity has a proper role in the Christian enterprise. Politics is IMHO the proper business of the laity, and in a similar way to other business they conduct. That is to say, it is nor correct to turn worldly business into Christian business. It is correct to be a Christian also in the way one conducts oneself in worldly business. There is a difference.
So from that perspective I do not like (arch)bishops meddling in politics, not even truly holy ones, or those that support the policies I like. In a sense, they are stepping over their appointed domain and doing the job of the laity then. It's like the shepherd not only leading the sheep to green pastures, but then insisting on grazing and chewing the cud himself for the sheep. Bishops are supposed to orient people to Christ, they should not lead them by the hand in worldly affairs. Bishops may need to speak up publicly where there is direct conflict of faith and morals with politics, to strengthen their faithful. Sometimes they may be called to set an example by martyrdom. But mostly their strength is precisely found in being one removed from the hustle and bustle of the political world. A bishop should not be leftwing or rightwing, he should be Christ-centre, and from that position able to speak to and be respected (and perhaps sometimes feared) by both.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.
George Whitefield and John Wesley were Arminian. Jonathan Edwards was Calvinist. All three were evangelical.
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ IngoB
It seemed like a natural progression to me. In terms of their particular concern for the poor and the marginalised I don't see as much difference between the two Archbishops as you do. However, I understand - and actually agree with you - that the attempted marriage between Marxism and Catholicism was wrong and gave rise to the sort of attitudes and behaviour which Archbishop Romero, rightly, criticised.
But I remain unconvinced by the argument that priests should not be involved with politics. We probably see the overlap between politics and faith differently - I'm happy to accept your use of the term overlapping categories by the way.
There is an incident in the life of Oscar Romero which had a profound affect on his life, and seems to have changed the nature of his activism.
Here is the excerpt from the Wiki article.
quote:
On 12 March 1977, Rutilio Grande, a Jesuit priest and personal friend of Romero who had been creating self-reliance groups among the poor, was assassinated. His death had a profound impact on Romero, who later stated, "When I looked at Rutilio lying there dead I thought, 'If they have killed him for doing what he did, then I too have to walk the same path'". Romero urged the government to investigate, but they ignored his request. Furthermore, the censored press remained silent.
To refer back to Jim Wallis's observation (and Archbishop Camara's) his experience taught him that he could not remain silent about the injustices to the poor, and those who wished to serve them. He saw who was pushing them in the river upstream.
To respond to these injustices, to protest about these injustices, seems to me to be profoundly Christian. There is a moral imperative at work. Not one which sees all such injustices resolved by political change - there I agree with you, the effects of the Fall are much more profound than that - but one which compels a speaking out on their behalf.
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.
[ 29. July 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.
George Whitefield and John Wesley were Arminian. Jonathan Edwards was Calvinist. All three were evangelical.
Yes. Also Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson; Creflo Dollar and Eugene Peterson; Tony Campolo and Oral Roberts, Shane Clairborne and Jerry Falwell; John Wimber and John McArthur. Again, think of the Bebbington quadrilateral. That is literally the only thing connecting all our diverse crowd. Arminian/Calvinist; Charismatic/ cessationist; politically progressive/ conservative-- we've got all that.
[ 28. July 2015, 23:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
It is hard to imagine a greater corruption of faith than mixing the gospel with Marxism
Mixing the the gospel with Objectivism isn't much better.
Ditto capitalism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Mixing it with anything is a corruption. Unfortunately, it's hard for people to resist.
Lewis called it "Christianity-And."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.
It occurred to me this morning that the use of the word "protest" did not fully express what I was thinking.
Based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is seen as Prophet, Priest and King. He spoke and acted with Divine authority in his words and actions in the temple and also in the Matthew 23 swingeing critique of the actions of scribes and Pharisees, when they misused their authority and abused the people.
Protest against the actions of any established authority always requires a prior judgment about the rights and wrongs of the actions of that authority. When that judgment is made public, by word or need, it is a challenge to the existing authority. It is a call to wake up and reform. And by normal definition, in line with the behaviour of prophets of old, that is a prophetic act. It challenges the actions of the authority in power.
It is in that sense that I use the word 'protest'.
Commenting also on more recent posts, and reflecting back on the OP, it now looks to me that the "marriage" between the GOP and the evangelical right in the US has done serious damage to both. Another effect of "Christianity-and" melding?
[ 29. July 2015, 07:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It seemed like a natural progression to me.
Hardly.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In terms of their particular concern for the poor and the marginalised I don't see as much difference between the two Archbishops as you do.
There's a pragmatic sense in which "helping the poor" has no particular relationship to any theology, nor for that matter to religion at all. If somebody is hungry, they need to be fed. Humans are a kind of animal, and that level of human existence has to be dealt with. But humans are not just animals, and dealing with their animal side never just remains a matter of dealing with the animal side.
Practical charity is a missionary tool. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether people like that or not (and many don't), it just is. Those in need who are being helped will invariably ask "why is that person doing this for me?" And they will invariably credit good deeds. If it is not to Christ, it will be to something else. I'm not talking about blatant "no bible, no bread" here, I'm talking about people guessing at other people's motivations - and this going into automatic overdrive when they are in serious trouble.
Those who care for the poor will create disciples, disciples to the best guess the poor have of their convictions and motivations. And the Marxist revolution of a Câmara will colour Christianity rather differently than the Opus Dei way of a Romero. I would rather have the poor follow the latter than the former...
(As an aside: the above tells you why the "professionalisation" of Christian charity in the West - in particular perhaps among Catholics - has basically neutered its contribution to the conversion of the populace.)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To refer back to Jim Wallis's observation (and Archbishop Camara's) his experience taught him that he could not remain silent about the injustices to the poor, and those who wished to serve them. He saw who was pushing them in the river upstream.
Was Romero really engaging in politics? His main impact was by truth-telling. He basically listed the transgressions of the state (murder, torture, calumny, ...) on the radio, and then gave a sermon. Thereby he became the only "news source" exposing the dark deeds of the government, which made him so popular. But what exactly is the political agenda in that? This is really more a basic moral agenda, and it become political only in the sense that the immorality is committed by the government. The denouncing of immorality and unfaithfulness is indeed "prophecy", and where this concerns the government it has political impact. But it is not really politics. Asking a government to please stop slaughtering people is not really a political platform.
Compare this to say a priest standing up and saying that there should be minimum wages of this amount, a benefit structure of this kind, educational reforms along these lines, etc. In general, these kind of questions are reasonably disagreed about by people in the political field. Of course, the opposing sides in a political battle may paint each other as immoral for disagreeing with their own policies. But they are certainly not immoral in the obvious sense of putting bullets through people's heads.
We should not have "prophecy" about tax reform, generally speaking. Not that Christianity has nothing to say about that sort of thing, but on such matters it is the reform of the character of laypeople making decisions that is the Christian game. It is a long game, a quiet game. If we pull "prophecy" on every matter of the state, then prophecy loses its sting and Christianity becomes just another loudmouth political party. Prophecy is a battle cry, that calls Christians to their suffering and death. Shepherds shouldn't call on their sheep to rush the wolves unless it is really, really necessary.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.
Your analysis of scripture here rings false. The cleansing of the temple gives succour to those who insist on liturgical purity and respect for the sacred in worship, for that's basically what this was about. Neither the money changing nor the sale of pigeons (for sacrifice) was bad as such. Those were simply necessary to keep the Jewish temple worship running as it was, which is why people set up on temple grounds. The problem Jesus explicitly identifies is that these were businesses, and people were operating them for pecuniary gain. But this was not a critique of all commercial enterprise. What was wrong was to have the commercial activity running in the temple. The temple was supposed to be a sacred space for prayer, dedicated only to the Father alone, not to making money from worshippers. The only time Jesus becomes physically violent Himself is when He protects a good that many modern Protestants reject - sacred "setting apart" of ritualistic and liturgical worship. That tells us something important, but not really about the case at hand.
Likewise, Jesus precisely does not call the people to rebel against the Jewish religious authorities. He does not complain that they lay heavy burdens without helping people (the comment is rather that they demand of others what is hard to them, while not doing it themselves though it is easy to them). Jesus explicitly calls people to obey the "seat of Moses", and what he complains about in the authorities is religious hypocrisy and ulterior motives other than worshipping God. In other places he also critiques some regulations as unreasonable, in the sense of missing their original goal through dumb application. Jesus de facto never attacks the Jewish establishment directly in their power, in particular not in a revolutionary stance. Jesus basically holds them to their own understanding of themselves, he embarrasses them with their own claim of authority in holiness.
As for the Romans, Jesus deals with the oppressors - indeed, with the very symbols of the oppression, Roman military - in a friendly way, dealing with their personal (rather than professional) concerns. And faced with the foremost local representatives of Roman power, Pilate and Herod, He essentially remains silent. There is no political speech there, no rallying of His supporters, not even a prophetic call to justice. The confrontation with Rome proceeds on a different level, is both more abstract and more profound. It is really when the apostles declare their evangelion of the Son of God, that the challenge is spoken. For this is a title of the Emperor, and the original "good news" was that the Emperor would send his messengers throughout the empire to proclaim that he had conquered. It was not concerning the state that the early Christians challenged Rome, it was concerning Divinity and concerning what is Divine good news.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Protest against the actions of any established authority always requires a prior judgment about the rights and wrongs of the actions of that authority. When that judgment is made public, by word or need, it is a challenge to the existing authority. It is a call to wake up and reform. And by normal definition, in line with the behaviour of prophets of old, that is a prophetic act. It challenges the actions of the authority in power.
Prophecy is not politics. In fact, prophecy loses impact if it becomes politicised. It defangs prophecy if it can be painted as just a political ploy. Prophecy has its greatest power when it is beyond politics, a call to truth that ties those into knots obvious to all who would dare deny it. What defence is there for a tyrant to the truth being told of his murderous stranglehold on power? More murder? More truth will follow, if the truth-tellers are willing to risk their lives. If things are indefensible, then prophecy destabilises power, for it cannot maintain itself without making ever more obvious what it is accused of.
But the characteristic of regular politics is that it is defensible. That's why there is politicking going on. That's why there are sides, sides that are convinced of their side. You cannot prophecy about what is negotiable and being negotiated. That's not a lone voice in the wilderness, that becomes one voice among so many sophists vying for attention. When claiming the moral high ground is a tactic, it is a ground neither high nor moral.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Actually, Fausto, George Whitefield was a Calvinist.
Wesley's Arminianism was rather a minority position within the 'First Evangelical Awakening'.
However - Cliffdweller's point is well made -- there are a wide range of views under the 'evangelical' umbrella ... and there are, of course, evangelicals who would appropriate the term solely for their own brand of evangelicalism.
Plenty of Reformed Evangelicals will use the Capital E term to refer purely to evangelicals of their own particular stable, for instance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day? How can God save the queen, it be one nation under God, God keep our land glorious and free? Carefully, carefully, indeed I think. It cannot take on the politics or protest nor support of the politics in power.
While I don't think the comparison earlier with ants is informed by actual behaviour because ants don't think for themselves and operate only as a group like biological automatons, the point that Christian action is most often person to person, small and local is well taken. With proper consideration of loving your neighbour as yourself, and proper explication that 'love' means empathy, and charitable and kind behaviour in this context, not mere emotion. And that it need not be soft but may be strong.
[ 29. July 2015, 12:53: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the Marxist revolution of a Câmara will colour Christianity rather differently than the Opus Dei way of a Romero. I would rather have the poor follow the latter than the former...
(As an aside: the above tells you why the "professionalisation" of Christian charity in the West - in particular perhaps among Catholics - has basically neutered its contribution to the conversion of the populace.)
We agree. I may have reservations about Opus Dei, but I am much more in agreement with Romero.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To refer back to Jim Wallis's observation (and Archbishop Camara's) his experience taught him that he could not remain silent about the injustices to the poor, and those who wished to serve them. He saw who was pushing them in the river upstream.
Was Romero really engaging in politics? His main impact was by truth-telling. He basically listed the transgressions of the state (murder, torture, calumny, ...) on the radio, and then gave a sermon. Thereby he became the only "news source" exposing the dark deeds of the government, which made him so popular. But what exactly is the political agenda in that? This is really more a basic moral agenda, and it become political only in the sense that the immorality is committed by the government. The denouncing of immorality and unfaithfulness is indeed "prophecy", and where this concerns the government it has political impact.
That is precisely why I see it as a political act. His broadcasts obviously did have political impact. They were why he was silenced by assassination.
quote:
Compare this to say a priest standing up and saying that there should be minimum wages of this amount, a benefit structure of this kind, educational reforms along these lines, etc. In general, these kind of questions are reasonably disagreed about by people in the political field. Of course, the opposing sides in a political battle may paint each other as immoral for disagreeing with their own policies. But they are certainly not immoral in the obvious sense of putting bullets through people's heads.
Agreed again
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.
Your analysis of scripture here rings false. The cleansing of the temple gives succour to those who insist on liturgical purity and respect for the sacred in worship, for that's basically what this was about. Neither the money changing nor the sale of pigeons (for sacrifice) was bad as such. Those were simply necessary to keep the Jewish temple worship running as it was, which is why people set up on temple grounds. The problem Jesus explicitly identifies is that these were businesses, and people were operating them for pecuniary gain. But this was not a critique of all commercial enterprise. What was wrong was to have the commercial activity running in the temple. The temple was supposed to be a sacred space for prayer, dedicated only to the Father alone, not to making money from worshippers. The only time Jesus becomes physically violent Himself is when He protects a good that many modern Protestants reject - sacred "setting apart" of ritualistic and liturgical worship. That tells us something important, but not really about the case at hand.
I think both the protection of the sacred space and the actions against the "den of thieves" were of equal importance so I do not accept that aspect of your analysis.
quote:
Likewise, Jesus precisely does not call the people to rebel against the Jewish religious authorities.
I never said he did. He condemned the actions and inactions of those in authority.
quote:
Jesus de facto never attacks the Jewish establishment directly in their power, in particular not in a revolutionary stance. Jesus basically holds them to their own understanding of themselves, he embarrasses them with their own claim of authority in holiness.
Agreed again. He accepted their authority and rounded on them for their hypocritical abuse of it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Protest against the actions of any established authority always requires a prior judgment about the rights and wrongs of the actions of that authority. When that judgment is made public, by word or need, it is a challenge to the existing authority. It is a call to wake up and reform. And by normal definition, in line with the behaviour of prophets of old, that is a prophetic act. It challenges the actions of the authority in power.
Prophecy is not politics.
Of course it is! Challenging the exercise of authority by the existing authority is both a moral act and a political act.
quote:
In fact, prophecy loses impact if it becomes politicised. It defangs prophecy if it can be painted as just a political ploy.
I think where we disagree is that in my terms you are talking about the devices in common use in politics. What you refer to as "politiking" etc.
quote:
But the characteristic of regular politics is that it is defensible. That's why there is politicking going on. That's why there are sides, sides that are convinced of their side. You cannot prophecy about what is negotiable and being negotiated. That's not a lone voice in the wilderness, that becomes one voice among so many sophists vying for attention. When claiming the moral high ground is a tactic, it is a ground neither high nor moral.
I agree that much of modern politics is very like this. Lots of relatives, not too many absolutes. And claiming the moral high ground as a tactic is, in my terms, an immoral act. But suppose you are sure that you stand on the moral high ground? Suppose you are a person of conviction on an issue? In modern political parlance, you declare your "red lines", the non-negotiable part of your beliefs and policies. That is also a part of the political process. Not all politics is compromised, morally malleable. The best of it is not, and never was. One of the reasons why politics is in such bad odour these days is because the political calling has lost its way over the importance of moral integrity. As we have daily proof.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day?
Because we're fucked up idiots. Translation: human sin.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Fortunately when the Church is fool enough to get into bed with Caesar, Caesar usually winds up kicking us really hard in painful places and dumping us back on the floor. Which reminds us where our true loyalty lies, and hopefully gets us back heading the right direction.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day? How can God save the queen, it be one nation under God, God keep our land glorious and free? Carefully, carefully, indeed I think. It cannot take on the politics or protest nor support of the politics in power.
I ask the same thing of my mainline brethren who every single time the consensus view of their political tribe contradicts traditional Christianity choose the consensus view of their political tribe.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Challenging the exercise of authority by the existing authority is both a moral act and a political act.
I disagree. Prophecy may be (mis)understood as a direct challenge to their power by those in power. But it really isn't
quote:
Oxford English Dictionary on OS X:
politics, plural noun
1. [ usu. treated as sing. ] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power: the party quickly gained influence in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.- the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.
- the academic study of government and the state: [ as modifier ] : a politics lecturer.
- a particular set of political beliefs or principles: people do not buy their paper purely for its politics.
- (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status: the politics of gender.
2. activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization: yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.
It is a social act, sure, but not a political one. You are not appealing to the "polis" (Greek city state) in its function as "polis" when you say that it would be good if people wouldn't get murdered. You are appealing to ground truths of human life, or higher truths if you like. Politics can be life and death, politics can be "Carthago delenda est." But it is characteristic of politics that one can disagree reasonably with the proposition.
The government had to kill Romero precisely because they themselves could not give good reason for their rampage. Or rather, the reasons they could give (maintaining personal power and wealth at any cost) are not the sort of thing one can speak publicly and expect to be respected or even loved for it. As much as people on either side of the various political divides would like to think so, this is just not the case for actual politics. Actual politics is not about cases that are already closed by the simple application of morals and/or common sense. Actual politics is about cases where one can disagree with each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not all politics is compromised, morally malleable. The best of it is not, and never was. One of the reasons why politics is in such bad odour these days is because the political calling has lost its way over the importance of moral integrity. As we have daily proof.
I consider this to be idealistic nonsense. Politics has always been, is now, and always will be in "bad odour". Politics has always been, is now, and always will be "morally malleable". Politics just is the art of negotiating the grey zones of contemporary social life and of the common good, and hence will always leave a bad taste in the mouth of somebody - usually of everybody. In the ideal world a garbage man might also smell of roses, but this is not such an ideal world. Politicking is the rule, not the exception. Where morals dictate action unequivocally, politicians might be the ones executing this action. But in some sense that is accidental: among their usual wheeling and dealing at the power switches of society they can also process actions that require none.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, that at least reveals our differences clearly enough.
So far as the business of politics is concerned, I'm not in the least idealistic about how it is, mostly, practised today. Negotiations over means do not have to be grubby, or conducted only by the morally malleable, though these days they very often are. People of integrity can settle their differences, or learn to live with their differences, without sacrificing their integrity in the process. But it seems you do not believe that is possible.
[ 29. July 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People of integrity can settle their differences, or learn to live with their differences, without sacrificing their integrity in the process. But it seems you do not believe that is possible.
I think you are confusing two things here: personal righteousness, and the political process of governance. It is IMNSHO impossible to do actual politics without difficult compromise and picking your battles (which means, not fighting many of them). Therefore, a politician cannot possibly realise what he considers to be true, just and beautiful. He has to deal with what is viable, faire enough and acceptable. Measured by their own standards, all politicians continuously must fall short in their governance. Only an absolute dictator can dream of realising exactly what he wants, but so at the expense of everybody else.
This is different however from failing in their own personal righteousness. For example, I may get a law passed against bad business practices only after considerable softening of its provision. This could be either (1) because there was tremendous opposition to my proposal, which I could only get around by making some allowances to some people, or (2) because some lobbyist organised a great evening with a hooker for me and gave me a brown envelope with enough money to pay off my mortgage.
In both cases my original goals have been compromised. In both cases the outcome is the same. But in (1) I think my personal righteousness remains untouched and I have engaged in the art of the possible even if this is not my ideal (and even if some people may blame me personally for not realising the ideal), whereas in (2) I have compromised my personal righteousness.
Actual politics does not work in the "here I stand, I can do no other" mode. If that's your thing, then you need to find a job nailing theses on doors, it will not do for politics. Politicians need to be willing to be flexible and pragmatic in the political process, even against the ideals of their own convictions, because otherwise you will get just a pure clash of will vs. will, with either a complete standstill or a war. Politics is necessarily "dirty" in that sense. It need not be "dirty" in other senses though.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
So, IngoB, who is wrong in the Vatican allowing the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to give the nihil obstat for the beatification process of Dom Hélder Câmara?
Anyway, what has this got to do with the OP?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day?
Because we're fucked up idiots. Translation: human sin.
Fortunately when the Church is fool enough to get into bed with Caesar, Caesar usually winds up kicking us really hard in painful places and dumping us back on the floor. Which reminds us where our true loyalty lies, and hopefully gets us back heading the right direction.
And you'd think of all people the Orthodoxen would have learned this by now. And yet our leaders and noisy ones have jumped on the latest religio-political bandwagon like it was the express train to heaven. Fucked-up idiots, indeed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, what has this got to do with the OP?
I said it was a tangent upstream. Feel free to call another Purg Host to the Styx for allowing some space here for this little bit of dialogue between IngoB and me. Personally, I thought it was an OK tangent, and might illustrate some broader principles about Christianity and activism. But YMMV.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So, IngoB, who is wrong in the Vatican allowing the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to give the nihil obstat for the beatification process of Dom Hélder Câmara?
Officially responsible would be Angelo Cardinal Amato, S.D.B., the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. However, the "nihil obstat" was sort of automatic. This is merely allowing the process of investigation to get started, at first in the relevant diocese. The only reason for this step is that the Vatican might have information on its files unknown to the public as well as the petitioner (in this case the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife), which makes impossible the assumption of heroic sanctity. So they get to veto the process at its start. That happens only very rarely though... and the "nihil obstat" says nothing about the cause other than that there are no secret records of wrongdoing.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, what has this got to do with the OP?
I said it was a tangent upstream. Feel free to call another Purg Host to the Styx for allowing some space here for this little bit of dialogue between IngoB and me. Personally, I thought it was an OK tangent, and might illustrate some broader principles about Christianity and activism. But YMMV.
To loop it back to the original post - I think that much of the evangelical malaise talked about is due to the confusion of kingdoms that IngoB is talking about (though I imagine he'd rather phrase it in Augustinian terms).
Whilst Marxism in itself is antithetical to Christianity - Christianity concern goes wider than just threats to the body. Much of the problem highlighted in the original post comes from those who are confusing the expedient with the ultimate.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have spent some time recently with a particular segment of my extended family. I did my best to avoid most of the confrontation, and was mostly successful. Here's what I probably should have said were it possible to be more bluntly honest with family.
It seems obvious that evangelicals love Jesus because of what he did for them. Via Jesus' wondrous grace, by bleeding his precious blood, he saves them from the fires of hell and gives them their ticket to a blissful heaven (along with a Calvinistic wad of cash in this world). For this 'gift' they love him and relentlessly thank him in word, song and dance. But as for Jesus' basic focus on peace, social justice, kindness and charity, most evangelicals reject all of that, as they build their church campuses within a closed network of the like-minded.
Evangelicals reject systematic help to those in poverty, and anything whatsoever that they think sounds like socialism. It's a "no" to food programs, free medical care, free/low cost employment training and education. Against societal institutional help for children. A big "God no" to national daycare programs or head start programs. And we certainly won't feed them school lunches if they haven't had breakfast either. They want punishment for criminals, and don't want to hear about adverse social conditions of whole communities of people that underlie the criminality.
It's all free market, where God shows his pleasure by bestowing success. Thank you God for sending us the right politicians! It's a triumphant 'no' to anything that might address the true needs in society via organized government help (God hates 'big government'!). Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus told people to do. All for the military, while simultaneously worshipping the prince of peace. Yup, they love their Jesus, but not because of what Jesus tried to teach us. Evangelicals have picked the wrong parts of Christianity to emphasize and they haven't earned their happiness by really following their religion's founder, whose core values they violate while saying they don't.
I think evangelicalism needs a major tune-up if not a complete renovation. That's my case.
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.
Well done on telling np that their experience of their own family is entirely invalid, and you, living a continent away, are much better informed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.
Well done on telling np that their experience of their own family is entirely invalid, and you, living a continent away, are much better informed.
Well I am certainly better informed about a global evangelical movement that for the last 150 years has combined fervent evangelical beliefs with passionate service for the poor, aid to everyone in need, education, medical care, support to armed services, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, serving the disaster and emergency services and striving for social justice in the name of Christ - in 126 countries (soon to be 127) on every continent.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.
Well done on telling np that their experience of their own family is entirely invalid, and you, living a continent away, are much better informed.
Well I am certainly better informed about a global evangelical movement that for the last 150 years has combined fervent evangelical beliefs with passionate service for the poor, aid to everyone in need, education, medical care, support to armed services, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, serving the disaster and emergency services and striving for social justice in the name of Christ - in 126 countries (soon to be 127) on every continent.
But not, I note, on no prophet's family or their beliefs. Since they self-describe as evangelical, perhaps you should consider their views too.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
....
You're clearly a different species of evangelical and are worthy of much praise and thanksgiving for your good works. I had thought your variety had died out; the last one we saw were the social gospel people who were extirpated here by the early 1970s, people like Tommy Douglas**. I'm truly sorry if I'm too ignorant to know the range of evangelicalism available and thereby insulted you and your's. (As a further display of my ignorant and moron nature, you may have noticed upthread, I don't know the difference between Arminian and Calvin either.)
**I don't and didn't agree with all of his mixing of politics with his religion - even more so after the good points made in this thread - but I do respect that he was faithful to his principles.
[ 30. July 2015, 00:08: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think all Mudfrog's post signifies is what we have already been over extensively on this thread: that evangelicalism on both sides of the pond is quite diverse theologically, politically, and in it's view of social justice. No Prophet's family represents sadly one segment of evangelicalism but not the only segment. But my preferred lefty version of evangelicalism ain't all there is either.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think what Mudfrog's post reveals is that most evangelicals are not the loonies like the ones at Westboro that you think they are!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what Mudfrog's post reveals is that most evangelicals are not the loonies like the ones at Westboro that you think they are!
I'm struggling to understand your position here.
I think it's fair to say that no prophet knows their family better than you do, and is not misrepresenting their stated religious affiliation, nor their theology, in any way, shape or form.
np doesn't 'think' their family are straight out of Westboro, rather that they are fairly representative of North American evangelicalism. Why is so difficult for you to believe that this is possible, given that other people on the thread have clearly identified with np's plight.
Or are you getting the No True Scotsman in by the backdoor?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well I'm sorry, but he talked about a segment of his family and then used them to damn all evangelicals. He didn't say 'Many evangelicals', he didn't say, 'Some evangelicals','a few evangelicals,' 'a minority of evangelicals', 'Extreme evangelicals', 'radical evangelicals'; he just said:
'Evangelicals reject systematic help to those in poverty and anything whatsoever that they think sounds like socialism. It's a "no" to food programs, free medical care, free/low cost employment training and education. Against societal institutional help for children. A big "God no" to national daycare programs or head start programs. And we certainly won't feed them school lunches if they haven't had breakfast either. They want punishment for criminals, and don't want to hear about adverse social conditions of whole communities of people that underlie the criminality. ...'
Do you really think that that is a position that is fairly representative of North American evangelicalism? I only see that kind of stuff in independent groups - groups that i cannot see as being part of the Mainstream of evangelical churches - it is certainly NOT the position of The Salvation Army in the US - which is as conservative an evangelical church as you will get in the Twenty First century.
Now, NP doesn't say what allegiance of background his segment of family belongs to, but if they hold the views he alludes to, they must be pretty odd.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
They may well be odd, Mudfrog, but they may also be very representative of evangelicals in No Prophet's part of North America ... indeed, I would be very surprised if they weren't - even given Cliffdweller's more encyclopaedic knowledge of US evangelicalism in its various facets and forms.
I'd agree that what No Prophet didn't do was to acknowledge that not all evangelicals are like his family - and I have reason to doubt or question his view of what his family are like nor the views they hold.
Sure, I would have preferred No Prophet in the OP to restrict his comments to a particular subset of US evangelicals rather than evangelicals as a whole -- but I don't feel particularly 'defensive' about it on evangelicalism's behalf because I know that as a movement it is far broader than that ...
I'd say similar, of course, if the OP had stated that all RCs were pre-Vatican II types with ultramontane views ... or that all Anglicans were middle-class, drank tea with the vicar and crossed their fingers behind their backs when reciting the Creed ...
Unbelievable as this may sound, I do post on other websites and I've certainly come across the kind of view that No Prophet has expressed about US evangelicalism - I've come across US Episcopalians, RCs and Orthodox as well as mainline Lutherans and others whose only exposure to evangelicalism has been to the kind of groups and views that No Prophet describes - and these people have been surprised - often pleasantly so - when I've directed them to evangelical sites and sources that demonstrate that not all evangelicals come out of that particular mould.
Sadly, however, these other groups are very vocal and tend to have a higher profile in the US than some of the more moderate evangelical groups or the kind of lefty evangelicalism that Cliffdweller espouses and represents.
It's one thing to deplore the rather stereotypical views that a Shipmate may express about a particular group or movement - but we have to understand why that Shipmate has come to that kind of conclusion. I'd suggest that this isn't necessarily the 'fault' of the Shipmate concerned, rather it's the impression they are picking up from the most dominant evangelical group within his/her purlieu.
One could easily pick up stereotypical views of any religious group - whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox if one was only exposed to a particularly variety or expression of that tradition on one's own doorstep.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
That's fair enough, I guess.
I do get a bit cheesed off when evangelicals are all targeted and seen as neanderthals.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you really think that that is a position that is fairly representative of North American evangelicalism?
Yes.
You may deplore the signal-to-noise ratio that drowns out people like Tom Sine, Shane Claiborne, and Jim Wallis, but you're simply cherry-picking: no only do people like np's family exist, but they're in the majority of NA evangelicals.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
