Things Heard: edition 11v2
Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 at
8:11 am
- Kudos to Mr Bush.
- In honor of the day, a hoax noted. Geek pranks.
- The elephant in the room, regarding Obama and his Church. Or how not to reach across the aisle.
- Ephraim!
- Prayer.
- A Patristic book club, to compete with Ms Winfrey? Suggestions for your club can be found at the link.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
From the article about Obama:
If the same standard is applied to Senator Obama, as it should be in fairness, the junior senator from Illinois faces a serious problem with many moderate and conservative voters.
I suspect it might be a serious problem for many conservative voters, but many of them wouldn’t have voted for Obama, anyway. I think that the rest of the country has moved on. We’ve heard the snippets of Wright’s sermons played repeatedly and out of context, made our decision that this is not a problem and moved on.
The polls today show that Obama has a double digit lead over Clinton amongst Dems nationwide. We’ve moved on.
The article also said:
His chosen religious group has almost no agreed on “theology” that is not political or does not have civic implications.
His is not any more or less political than all those religious groups whose “theology” has room to vigorously support the Iraq Invasion or the death penalty or oppose abortion.
Our faith should and does have political implications. Even those whose belief system is that they should not have ANY political opinions, that in itself has political implications. The implication, for instance, that you will not stand opposed to injustice when practiced by your gov’t.
I do agree with the writer that asking what the political ramifications are of Obama’s, Clinton’s or McCain’s belief system is fair. Their whole belief system, including their faith or lack thereof. It’s all part of who we are.
I am less clear what he’s complaining about on the UCC statement of faith, which says they believe in a triune God, that each person is valuable, that we’re all on a spiritual journey, that searching for God results in a relationship of some sort with God, that the Baptized of the church universal ARE a part of the church Universal, that communion is for all the church, that the UCC is to be a united and uniting church, that we are called to be servants, prophets and peacemakers.
There are points there I’d nitpick about, but does he find that not fitting in orthodoxy?
Perhaps my biggest problem is the statement about all the Baptized are part of the body of Christ, when I think it’s clear that one can be baptized and choose to not be part of the body of Christ. But they might be able to clarify that further, I doubt seriously that they think a mere water baptism saves you.
Do you find that outside orthodoxy or somehow especially political?
Dan,
Where you write:
What religious group are you thinking regarding that comment (aside from abortion which has consistently been opposed by Christians since the first century AD)?
On the theological question, the prosperity gospel crowd are (very often) creedal Christians, or in your working “fitting orthodoxy”, however their eschatological ideas and the particular ideas of how salvation working here and now through social and personal effects today is in error. This is not technically speaking heresy. It is however wrong. My guess is you have a problem with the prosperity gospel. Why don’t you have a problem with the theology of Mr Obama’s church, which basically operates on the same premise but replaces “getting rich” with “political/social redemption”.
Because we are to pray and work for “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”
A point to which I’m sure you’ll agree.
Do you suspect that the UCC or black theologians “trust gov’t” to do the work of the church? If so, I’d suggest you’ve misunderstood the UCC and black theologians – who, as you can see – clearly DON’T trust the gov’t much at all.
So again, I don’t see what the problem is with this statement of belief. Can you point to what specifically troubles you?
Dan,
I don’t “work for” the Kingdom to come, I work for theosis.
I don’t suspect that the UCC and BL theologians “trust the government” to do their work. I think, just as the prosperity gospel preachers do, they think the gospel means the fulfillment of their earthly dreams, be it wealth or racial redemption, through their faith.
If you think faith in Christ is to make your life easy or more comfortable … you’re just plain wrong.
I’ve read one of Mr Cone’s books. I found it difficult to critique because it was so wrong in so many ways. I’ll pick one for you, Mr Cone writes that the gospel is for the oppressed, and directly implies it is not for the oppressor. He says it’s “for the Blacks, and if you’re not Black you have to become Black in order for it to be for you.”
However, there is a little problem with that. It’s not true. Jesus saw the tax collector and the centurion (the oppressors) just as he saw the lame, the blind, the leper, the prostitute and so on. Jesus died for all of us.
Paul wrote and Epistle to the Romans … the oppressors and notes the gospel is for Greek and non-Greek, i.e., for everyone.
they think the gospel means the fulfillment of their earthly dreams, be it wealth or racial redemption, through their faith.
If you think faith in Christ is to make your life easy or more comfortable … you’re just plain wrong.
I don’t think that LT adherents or BLT believe that, I’ve never read that anywhere. I think that they believe the Bible teaches (as I believe it does) we ought to work for God’s Kingdom in the here and now. I suspect that, like me, they recognize that won’t happen in this world in any full and complete manner, but that we are to work for that regardless.
None that I know of think that this is likely to bring comfort or ease, but rather, it’s more likely to bring a cross.
I’m no expert on LT and could be wrong, but I don’t think they believe what you think they believe.
And Jesus said that the gospel is for the oppressed, “Good news for the poor, the imprisoned, the dislanded, the ill.” I would guess that LT folk think, as I do, that this good news can be good news for the wealthy and oppressor, as well, for when they give up ill-gotten gain and oppression, there is a great liberty and salvation for them, as well.
I think the LT-ers think that salvation is NOT for the oppressors as long as they choose to remaing the oppressors. Again, I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. At least not in the case of the LT advocates that I know and in the (relatively small amount of) LT stuff I’ve read.
Dan,
Jesus didn’t tell the centurion to give up his occupation and Paul’s epistle to the Romans wasn’t about giving up their position in the world. Paul didn’t tell Philemon to free Onesimus. The point is the gospel is a message not about changing our political and social relations but about changing our selves and our relation to God.
God came into this world, through Jesus to save sinners, of whom I am first. He didn’t come into the world with a message that we should build our vision of His kingdom like a little Tower of Babel in our midst.
As I’ve said before, I think the LT/BLT message is very wrong, specifically on how it deals with oppression. I think the early church in the first 3 centuries was oppressed and is our best and first example of what and how our theology should be shaped to deal with oppression. Specifically saying “Jesus’ message isn’t for you” isn’t the way. Raising barriers and chalking lines between us is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
And as I noted, I think you have LT plain wrong. I don’t think many LTs would agree that you are representing their belief system and, in fact, I suspect that most LT adherents would say that you are misrepresenting their positions.
Do you have any actual quotes that support your position (ie, where an LT adherent says what you say they believe)?
And I repeat:
I suspect that, like me, they recognize that won’t happen in this world in any full and complete manner, but that we are to work for that regardless.
None that I know of think that this is likely to bring comfort or ease, but rather, it’s more likely to bring a cross.
If we’re NOT to do and with to “the least of these,” to pray and work for “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then I would think you’d have to take that up with Jesus, not the LT folk.
I will say that I have problems with some LT folk – sometimes, they engage in the same kind of demonizing and word-twisting of the Other that their opponents wrongly engage in. And it’s wrong for both of them to do so.
Still, given a choice between a poor, oppressed person engaging in wrong-doing as an act of trying to stay alive and an oppressor engaging in that (and worse) in an effort to secure power, money and land, I have MUCH more outrage with the oppressors.
I think that is the Biblical model.
Which is not to say that the oppressors are The Devil and wholly evil. Just that they are wrong. Especially wrong. For the bible tells me so.
Dan,
I’ll agree that LT folk will object to my representation of their theology as another side of the same coin as the prosperity gospel … I just think it’s also accurate. I’ll try to dig up some quotes from the book by Cone that I do have and why I read them the way I do.
I agree that we are to do with “the least of these” as we would to Jesus … but I firmly reject the notion that has anything at all to do with government. Rowan Williams in a little book, wrote that the early Christians felt that the correct view of the Christian in society is as “resident alien”. This was expressed in their martyrdom narratives and later, after Constantine, in the monastic movements. I think “the kingdom come” is closer to Mount Athos than your notions of a temporal socialistic utopia.
Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society with no rights or liberties – where one can’t vote to make changes – makes sense.
Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society where you are a minority voice – makes some sense, too.
Nonetheless, as resident aliens in a culture where we do have a voice and a vote, it also makes sense to work for positive change. And there’s certainly nothing unbiblical about doing so.
And I’ll note that I have not called for a temporal socialistic utopia. But if I were to offered a choice between a system that was a temporal laissez faire capitalistic, social darwinistic dystopia versus a socialistic utopia, I’d lean towards the utopia, but ultimately reject both in favor of some middle ground.
There certainly is not the first thing wrong biblically for voting one’s conscience in a democratic system where one has a voice and a vote, I’d hope that you’d agree. And, in fact, I’d find it shocking if a Christian said that, while they personally were OPPOSED to genocide (for instance), they wouldn’t want to push their personal religious beliefs off on their society when it engages in genocide.
I’d think and hope you’d agree with this as well.
I doubt that you think Christians are wrong for acting and voting their conscience in a democratic society. How is that different than what LT advocates are saying?