|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Possible collapse of a church
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And. no, it is not an engineering problem. I'm referring to the evangelicals who are causing a lot of stress by supporting Trump, despite said tiny-fingered one having almost NO character trait or behaviour that would qualify him as a practising Christian. (anyone else with his qualities would be laughed out of the room, ISTM)
Generations ago, the Roman Catholics controlled Quebec, with the support and collusion of the Union Nationale Party. There were strong elements of Nazi-type thinking in the hierarchy.
Jean Chretien, lately a Prime Minister of Canada, described how his father was denied communion by the priest, sometime around WW2, because said parent was known to be a Liberal Party organiser, for instance. And there are many other examples.
But that war changed things, and a different social outlook developed. There were writings and presentations by many thought-leaders (including Trudeau pere) which contributed to the Silent Revolution of the late 50s and the election of a Liberal government.
And the grip of the RC church on the people of the province was loosened, to the extent that the participation in religious activity dropped from the 90% range down to single digits.
Is the activity of the religious-right segment of the evangelical churches likely to have a similar effect, as people discuss this election? Is there anything the "calm" part of that group can do to avoid having their edifice crumble?
(There is a similar question about the GOP and their relationship to The Donald, but let's stick with the religious side)
Or is that kind of capitalism-worshipping redesigned fundamentalism so entrenched that it will continue to be a force in politics?
I note the existence of a significant number of (self-appointed) evangelicals who are rewriting theology to prove that The Donald is, in effect, the anointed one, see this write-up on Wayne Grudem . Is that going to make any difference over-all?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Any prominent person or denomination or church that has not spoken out against the prosperity gospel must accept a proportionate amount of the blame. Any who have not spoken out against Trump will similarly be blamed. Any who have preached against the poor, or who have preached praise of capitalism or any of its trappings (supply side economics, I'm looking at you), will be held accountable in the court of public opinion.
Those who are left may need to get another name.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Christianity has proved capable of morphing itself into just about anything in support prevailing circumstances.
Evangelicals like to be pumped and Donald's doing it. If he gets into power and helps the poor it will be seen as God's Will, likewise the same if he drops bombs on bad people.
Not much different from the last two millennia really.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Grudem's statement comes in for a bit of discussion on the US Presidential thread from here onwards.
Not all US evangelicals are Trump voters, but I know enough of them to be unnerved.
I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers. Unless the scope of the debate can be widened, these two issues will decide many US evangelical votes.
The second difficulty is the rather-too-quick shortcut in the rhetoric from the "nation" and the "land" in the Bible, especially in the OT, to the USA. Grudem's piece is full of this. It fuels isolationism. That's how Dead Horse issues somehow come higher up in such voters' priorities than the prospect of reneging on promises to NATO allies or pre-emptive nuclear strikes abroad. Add a firm conviction that one is in God's own country and a touch of Manifest Destiny, and there you have it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I have attended my (Anglican) church in Northern VA for about thirty years now. No clergy has ever endorsed a candidate from the pulpit, nor spoken out about elections, a prudent policy in this region. (Although once, famously, our beloved rector prayed aloud, "And we trust, Lord, that it is Your will that the Redskins make it into the playoffs this afternoon." And the congregation said "Amen!" The answer on that one, BTW, was no.)
However, this summer for the very first time the rector spoke out against the Tiny Fingered One. He didn't name him specifically, but the callout against racism, against hate, against anti-immigrant demonizing, was absolutely clear. The congregation was too stunned to say 'Amen.'
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Your penultimate paragraph Horseman Bree. You know the answer. Social evolution has centuries, millennia to go. No cultural phenomenon lasts ten thousand years, so may be then. But I fear this is NOT a cultural phenomenon. Organized violent religion beyond the shamanistic has been with us for half that time at most, but it's a keeper if it's a function of social evolution. Conservatism is here to stay, the pursuit of social justice is shackled by its drag, its friction. In us all. There is something horribly human about it. I don't see ANY church confronting it, West or East. They're too afraid. It CANNOT collapse.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any prominent person or denomination or church that has not spoken out against the prosperity gospel must accept a proportionate amount of the blame.
Oddly enough, our Rector did indeed preach against the prosperity gospel this morning. I don't remember him ever doing this before, but that may just say something about my memory.
Preaching specifically for or against a political candidate could cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Preaching specifically for or against a political candidate could cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status.
One could wish. I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!
[ 08. August 2016, 00:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The Nons are now the largest voting block in the US now.
I see this as the last hurrah for the Baby Boom generation. The Mega Church phenomenon is a Baby Boom thing. So it is not surprising for evangelicals to try to influence this election.
Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!
The "voter's guides" that I've seen are usually very careful. They'll list the various candidates' stands on certain hot button issues. They won't say to vote for Candidate A, but they'll make it clear that Candidate A is pro-life, anti-immigration, pro gun rights, etc., whereas Candidate B has the wrong ideas on those issues. Some of them are indeed on very thin ice.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
What's the Donald's stand on abortion and homosexuality? My impression is that he doesn't care for the details.
Redskins is an offensive name for a team Brenda, no wonder God didn't intervene. They should change their name to the Obamas, after negotiating an acceptable licence fee of course.
Horseman Bree, are you the Apocalyptic rider that brings the cheese? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Hmmm, have I said that before?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I went to my sister's East Bay mega church around the time of the first Obama election, and all over the gathering areas-- the outer waiting areas, the Bible study room, the coffee hour room-- a layer of playing card sized voter's guides had been scattered. I looked one over, and the language made it clear that this was a guide to Christian voting. The dictated choices, as you can guess, underlined uniformly conservative. RightWing dogma.
Before that, for the second GW Bush election, "The Lutheran Witness" had a cover article in October titled something like, "How does a Christian vote?" Again, the article gave strong support of a conservative, right wing stance, while giving a three sentence nod to more left wing concerns, like social services and an end to war. A rebuttal promptly followed each nod. Stacks of this magazine sat in the Parish hall entryway, on tables in the narthex, in the various Bible study areas of my former church.
It really unnerved me. The LCMS was pretty much telling people how to vote. And from what I knew of that particular congregation, a lot of the members would be quite happy to go to the polls with the Witness in one hand as they went down the voting list.
Yeah, American Conservative Christianity has a lot to answer for in this respect-- they taught people that their voting conscience is up for scrutiny, and politicians that, if you sweettalk the religious right just so, they will roll over for you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!
The "voter's guides" that I've seen are usually very careful. They'll list the various candidates' stands on certain hot button issues. They won't say to vote for Candidate A, but they'll make it clear that Candidate A is pro-life, anti-immigration, pro gun rights, etc., whereas Candidate B has the wrong ideas on those issues. Some of them are indeed on very thin ice.
The one I saw was very much like Kelly's. It had gone through the ice and was plumbing the depths.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes but look at all this from the other side.
I'm dead against getting our church mixed up in party politics or offering voting guidance, but faced with extremist politicians or policies merely arguing for a different stance is already effectively taking a political line.
Here, if we had Marine Le Pen from the Front National (a party I suspect of wooing Christian voters in general and not a few evangelicals, albeit not so outspokenly, as Trump) as a second-round presidential candidate, I think I'd have a really hard time not saying something.
Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?
1. If they were, how would that refute anything said on this page?
2. Do you appreciate how very, very different it is to counsel someone not to vote for John McCain or for George W. Bush, and to counsel someone not to vote for Donald Trump? Very very very different?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Of course, but you were the one protesting about voters' guides higher up. Did you mean that, or did you mean voters' guides that induced people to vote Republican only?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
The Catholic Church in Australia has a proud history of telling people how to vote from the pulpit. Frankly, I see no problem with the fact of doing it, tax exempt status in the USA to one side. I see heaps of problems with telling people to vote for right wing candidates who reflect that churches views, from a partisan political perspective. I see heaps of problems with Churches telling people that Trump supports their agenda. There is no way of knowing if that's right, because you can't trust what the Donald says.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In my limited experience on this side of the pond, right-wing politicians openly and cruedely court the Christian vote, whereas left-wing politicians do so more subtly.
Whatever your political stripe, the bottom line is that church leaders are seen as being able to mobilise lots of voters; church leaders need to be alive to this reality.
Evangelicals having enough mass to have real political impact is a relatively recent development (compared to, say, the Holy Roman Empire...) so they have a bit less experience in handling this kind of pressure.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers.
But hasn't Trump flip-flopped over abortion? And I haven't really heard him campaigning over homosexuality. It seems to me the evangelical support for Trump is even more craven than that. It seems to be based on the fact that he hates liberals and political correctness and so do they.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.
[ 08. August 2016, 07:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Tangent alert:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...... The Mega Church phenomenon is a Baby Boom thing. ..... Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.
Best thing I've read in a long time. Hope it's correct.
Edited to make clear: I hate the mega-church thing and believe it to be seriously damaging to many people. Baby-boomers cannot live for ever although they will outlive me by 6 or 7 years. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 08. August 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.
As for downright sicko lunacy, that can occur anywhere on the politico-religious spectrum.
I am old enough to remember trendy Christians (including liberal evangelicals) back in the early Seventies adulating Mao, history's worst mass murderer.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade . . . .
I think you mean liberal justices who will not overturn Roe v. Wade.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.
I don't think Trump can be relied on to do anything (except have a thin skin, a temper and a flair for narcissism). But I guess it is true that Hillary is unlikely to row back on Roe v Wade or SSM, so I guess if those are your litmus tests then yes I can see that Trump is a better bet.
(At the expense of a modest risk of destroying the free world of course).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.
Of course other Christians will try to influence the political views and decisions of their fellow believers. Only a few weeks ago I was preaching, and made my opinions of the darker side of British life exposed by the Brexit campaign and vote very clear.
What seems to be the difference (from my possibly flawed perspective from the other side of the Atlantic) is that the US religious right forms a semi-coherent bloc that is appealed to by politicians, in particular Republicans who have become well-versed in saying the right things to gain the support of the leadership of Evangelical churches. I suppose the question is why politicians appeal to the religious right, and why there isn't a corresponding attempt to appeal to the more liberal churches and Christians from other politicians? Are the right more coherent in their theology and the political outworking of that?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes but look at all this from the other side.
I'm dead against getting our church mixed up in party politics or offering voting guidance, but faced with extremist politicians or policies merely arguing for a different stance is already effectively taking a political line.
Here, if we had Marine Le Pen from the Front National (a party I suspect of wooing Christian voters in general and not a few evangelicals, albeit not so outspokenly, as Trump) as a second-round presidential candidate, I think I'd have a really hard time not saying something.
Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?
A few evangelicals have rebranded themselves as Bible Believing Christians as they believe the Evangelical label has become toxic. Partly because of the political views it’s become associated with. I'm not convinced by the new label as that implies a value judgement on the rest of us. I'm a Bible Believing Christian too! I just believe the Bible says different things. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If Le Pen makes the ballot, you’d have to. It would be your Christian duty. In one of our previous churches, the BNP was really popular in the area. Rev T did pretty much everything during that election apart from telling people outright not to vote for them. There were sermons about “welcoming the stranger” etc.
In our current church, he provided a practical demonstration of how empty our church would be everyone who wasn’t born in the UK “went home” after the Kippers started carpet bombing the area with leaflets. It seemed to work. Some of the after church conversations at coffee were really thought provoking.
Tubbs
[ 08. August 2016, 12:52: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.
I don't think Trump can be relied on to do anything (except have a thin skin, a temper and a flair for narcissism). But I guess it is true that Hillary is unlikely to row back on Roe v Wade or SSM, so I guess if those are your litmus tests then yes I can see that Trump is a better bet.
(At the expense of a modest risk of destroying the free world of course).
Given that he's meant to have asked the military why we don't use the nukes we have, you could just omit the word "free" ... It's not like the fallout will discriminate.
He is a truly frightening prospect ... I'm not fan of Hilary, but given the choice ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
IMO it is the tragedy of the evangelical church in our generation that they hitched their wagon so tightly to the right wing. They sacrificed the Gospel for a mess of pottage; there's a reason why the younger generation no longer goes to church.
Creatures like Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptists are now the face of Jesus in the minds of vast swathes of the country.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?
Some parts of the Church in Germany remained faithful to Christ and campaigned against Hitler and the Nazi government. How that turned out is irrelevant in regards to the question of whether or not they did the right thing.
The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.
Can he? Won't his single selection criterion be whether the judge will support Mr T and all his deeds, i.e. do as he is told?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade,
This is a mis-step. Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal; a liberal judge would not repeal it, a conservative judge would.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course, but you were the one protesting about voters' guides higher up. Did you mean that, or did you mean voters' guides that induced people to vote Republican only?
Okay at this point maybe you had better explain what your point was for saying that because you have lost me. What makes you think that I would only decry voters' guides that suggest Republican candidates? Is this just an attempt to twit me? I'm really confused.
[ 08. August 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers.
But hasn't Trump flip-flopped over abortion? And I haven't really heard him campaigning over homosexuality.
Although his running mate is a well-known anti-gay demagogue.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As for downright sicko lunacy, that can occur anywhere on the politico-religious spectrum.
It could, but at the moment that's irrelevant. At the moment our sicko lunatic is on the right. And he must be defeated.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) A thousand times this. Also the church trying to manipulate politics to protect its own rights, or the rights of its members. This is a new, and I think heretical, historical twist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A few evangelicals have rebranded themselves as Bible Believing Christians as they believe the Evangelical label has become toxic. Partly because of the political views it’s become associated with. I'm not convinced by the new label as that implies a value judgement on the rest of us. I'm a Bible Believing Christian too! I just believe the Bible says different things.
In the US those evangelicals who want to brand themselves as "Bible-believing" are not the left-wing ones trying to escape the problematic associations with right-wing fundies-- they ARE the right-wing fundies. "Bible-believing" is supposed to distinguish yourself from those awful Catholics or worse, liberals who supposedly never read their Bibles (the ironies abound).
In the US, evangelicals (in the strict definition of the term) who are left-wing and embarrassed by what the movement has become tend to use terms like "post-evangelical", emergent or postmodern (although those terms seems to have phased out), or simply to identify with an older liturgical church in a distinctly evangelical way (e.g. Rachel Held Evans). I'm an older left-wing evangelical so tend to want to hold on to the historic meaning of the term, continue to self-identify as "evangelical", but accept that the term may have become so tainted we'll simply have to abandon it and adopt something else.
As someone still desperately clinging to the "evangelical" label, let me point out that for every high-profile evangelical leader endorsing Trump, you'll find a high-profile evangelical leader denouncing him. For the most part those high-profile evangelical leaders that have endorsed Trump are older fundamentalists who are desperately trying to reclaim their now-dwindling empires (yes, Pat and Jerry Jr., I'm looking at you). I can't think of a single prominent evangelical of the younger gen supporting Trump (with the possible exception of Mark Driscoll-- haven't heard anything political from him for awhile, but Trump seems right up his alley). Those older leaders supporting Trump are also often prosperity gospel preachers, which is about the only quasi-Christian theology that can make sense (in a twisted sort of way) with the gospel Trump is trying to sell.
[ 08. August 2016, 16:30: 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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
I suppose the question is why politicians appeal to the religious right, and why there isn't a corresponding attempt to appeal to the more liberal churches and Christians from other politicians? Are the right more coherent in their theology and the political outworking of that?
Democrats have no reason to reach out to liberal churches because liberal churches readily embrace left wing causes de jour without question and argue that the gospel compels us to support the left wing cause de jour. For instance, my colleagues were all dutifully shocked and horrified at the way George W. Bush conducted the war on terror. They were dutifully shocked and horrified that Israel uses it's military to execute Palestinians without trial. Are they shocked and horrified about Obama's drone strikes? No...not really...they've moved on to other things.
For the record, I've preached sermons against the prosperity gospel and the excesses of capitalism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade,
This is a mis-step. Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal; a liberal judge would not repeal it, a conservative judge would.
Yes, I got this the wrong way round, as Nick Tamen has already helpfully pointed out.
quote:
What makes you think that I would only decry voters' guides that suggest Republican candidates?
You echoed Kelly's objection to voter guidance in the context of pro-Republican guidance. If your objection applies across the board, then so much the better.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?
Some parts of the Church in Germany remained faithful to Christ and campaigned against Hitler and the Nazi government. How that turned out is irrelevant in regards to the question of whether or not they did the right thing.
The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.
Agreed to the nth power Alan. So when we talk about the church being faithful to Christ in Nazi (democratically elected overwhelmingly by church goers) Germany or in November in the States, we're not talking the big monolithic denominations are we? We're talking 1% of those.
What is chilling upon chilling about us as obedient monkeys revealed by the Milgram experiment is that, "The participants [one third] who refused to administer the final shocks neither insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave.".
Without a clear, radical declaration of the gospel, requiring the courage of passive resistance shown by a handful of individuals in the last century, even the minority cannot stand against evil and even then, only the leadership of Dr. King comes to mind. A few others certainly stood, but alone.
The church collapsed 1700 years ago.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Have you ever preached a sermon against the 2nd Amendment, Beeswax Altar?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No
Why would I?
The whole gun debate is one where I don't have much time for either side. Is the most pressing issue for my conservative friends and family their ability to own a relatively low powered semiautomatic rifle or to carry a handgun around like Wyatt Earp? Is the most pressing issue of justice for progressive friends and colleagues really gun violence for which even they admit that all of their "common sense" proposals will do little to stop? What about the greater number of lives lost to the prescription drug epidemic caused by the collective stupidity of doctors, pharmacists, and insurance companies that really could be addressed through common sense rules and regulations?
[ 08. August 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
When exactly did I admit that "common sense" proposals to limit gun violence wouldn't help?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
From the little island across the water, I suspect that the impact will depend on whether tiny-fingered-wig-disaster wins or not.
If he doesn't, I think it may signal the end of the fundamentalists in the US (they won't disappear immediately, of course, but it will be the fatal blow). I suspect those evangelicals who are left will find other names and descriptions, and continue but as a minor grouping, having a position more like the UK evangelicals - or those who are not following the US example.
If he wins, they will have a boost for a few years. I think it will delay their demise for a while. But they are still likely to lose the younger support, which may have an even bigger impact in the long term*.
*Assuming, under Trump, we have a long-term.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump. Trump's support comes from areas where the local churches are evangelical and you get cultural evangelical Christians the same way you get any other kind of cultural Christian. Second, some conservative Christians are voting for Trump because he won't be as bad on the issues that are important to them as Clinton. I don't think Trump's candidacy says anything about the politics of Evangelical Christians. The failure of Cruz and Huckabee says more about the decline of the religious right than the fortunes of Donald Trump.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Schroedinger's cat - fundamentalism is human, a developmental cul-de-sac as old as mythos-logos, over 2,500 years with at least that many to go.
Until I & E Q evolve up a standard deviation or two, we're stuck with it.
Beeswax Altar. A nice antithesis. I'd like to see more on this.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.
Of course other Christians will try to influence the political views and decisions of their fellow believers. Only a few weeks ago I was preaching, and made my opinions of the darker side of British life exposed by the Brexit campaign and vote very clear.
What seems to be the difference (from my possibly flawed perspective from the other side of the Atlantic) is that the US religious right forms a semi-coherent bloc that is appealed to by politicians, in particular Republicans who have become well-versed in saying the right things to gain the support of the leadership of Evangelical churches.
Sounds about right to me, Alan. Basically the language of Christianity turns into a political Shibboleth, and evangelical leaders seem content with things remaining so.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.
With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.
With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.
I suspect that is part of the "cultural evangelical" problem. If you live in an area where the Christian faith is dominated by large, Evangelical churches (but, probably they actually represent a minority of church-goers, it's just that they are visible) and people still identify as Christian even if they don't regularly attend church, then you have a situation where people feel that they should support "Christian values", and they get those values from a combination of sound-bites from high-profile evangelical church leaders and from the media. Those values are unlikely to be challenged if they conform to the existing prejudices of the people who pick up on them.
If the support for Trump from "evangelicals" is more significantly coming from "cultural evangelicals" who only occasionally attend church, and hence are less likely to hear preaching that challenges their opinions which lead to supporting Trump, then it's difficult for the Evangelical churches to distance themselves from Trump - preaching on Sunday morning will have little difference on people who aren't there, press statements etc will only have an effect if the media choose to run them (and, still risk being considered "political" and hence not allowed under the tax status of churches, or being a liberal fringe view when there are lots of other big names saying something different).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.
On reflection (on Alan's post as well as this one) I think there's something in this.
My own hunch where I am is that the prominent evangelicals for these kinds of soundbite are completely out of touch with where the under-35s in their own congregations are on ethical/political issues.
There is a rising generation of power-hungry guys (mostly) championing the same views as the leadership, but I think there's a silent majority that thinks (and perhaps votes) differently. Couple this with a decline in wanting to belong to any organisation much at all and it could be a watershed moment in evangelical expressions of church, at least.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My own hunch where I am is that the prominent evangelicals for these kinds of soundbite are completely out of touch with where the under-35s in their own congregations are on ethical/political issues.
I think this is shown in survey after survey, especially on DH issues. I know what my kids (brought up in a ConEvo CofE church, now attending a char-evo CofE church) think about those issues and they are simply non-issues to them.
None of that is reflected in sermons or literature. They don't even get outraged by it. They just think (rightly) that the leaders are old and are going to die soon, and that teaching will simply die with them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
