Oh no! Another Black minister has been mouthing off, attacking the US, demonstrating hatred for our beloved nation! And siding with the enemy, to boot!!
What's wrong with these black "pastors," false prophets pretending to be "christians"??!! What audacity, spreading their lies and hatred of the US!
"Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over..."
"Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long..."
"But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators -- our chosen man, Premier Diem..."
"Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps... They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged..."
"They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children [!!!]..."
~Dr. Martin Luther King
=====
What's wrong with these black pastors?
Nothing.
What's wrong with the rest of our pastors who refuse to stand up to such atrocities?
Fortunately for us, King lived before YouTube, although he was certainly attacked and denounced for his prophetic, Godly words, too.
[Note: Not that I'm comparing Wright to King, exactly. Just pointing out that strong words are part and parcel of prophetic preaching. I still agree that Wright went overboard in parts, but this is just an attempt to try to demonstrate the tradition from which Wright springs. May God bless Wright for his intent and be merciful with his failures.
If Wright's hyperbole reached the level of crime, it was a misdemeanor. While too many pastors committed the felony of turning too blind an eye to - or even supported! - criminally immoral policy here at home.]
38 comments:
Meh... I'll believe that this phony indignation from the radical right isn't just more hypocrisy when they denounce McCain for receiving endorsements from folks like Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley, etc. Want to compare rhetoric? Take a look at what the good Rev. Parsley has to say about Muslims, particularly when he talks about eradicating them.
That hypocrisy demonstrates clearly that this isn't really about what Rev. Wright has to say, but rather is about race, pure and simple. When *hasn't* the radical right been all about using fear to try to manipulate voters??
This is just another page out of the Karl Rove playbook, a way to divide the electorate along another hot button issue and fire up the radical right base. Last two elections it was the gays, this time it's African Americans. The radical right couldn't find a way to paint Obama as a scary enough black man, so they found a "link" between Obama and another black guy they could paint as really scary.
I'm sure they'd have been happier to find a gangsta-rapper to really get the racial fear juices going, but they'll take what they can.
It's all just weapons of mass distraction. Business as usual for those folks. In the meantime, please ignore the fact that their "experienced" candidate, Mr. McCain, can't tell a Sunni from a Shia from a Smurf, and hasn't been able to do so for years.
"pastor” Wright" is wrong and Dr. King was wrong about Vietnam. The difference is Dr King would either stormed the pulpit or walked out if “pastor” Wright was “preaching”
Glad I could clear that up you.
Ever notice how Jesus stayed out of politics . Hmmm I guess the Romans were kind and treated the Jews great, maybe it didn’t bother him when they beheaded John The Baptist. Even while on the cross he reached out to save the soul of his neighbor, not condemn the government that put him there.
As a preacher Jesus was only concerned with freeing people from their own sins and not from the government. But what do I know I’m just a typical white person who attends a church who damns no one.
Drood:
As a preacher Jesus was only concerned with freeing people from their own sins and not from the government.
Jesus (quoting Isaiah):
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because God has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them, "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."
Which Jesus are you talking about, Edwin?
Jesus' teachings have deep political implications and certainly would have been understood as such by those who listened to him.
Similarly, all the prophets had deeply political messages. Policies were wrong and needed to be changed. Now!, thus saith the Lord...
Similarly, Moses' teachings had policy-related implications, as were the judges and Israel.
How are you defining "political"? I'm defining it as "Having to do with policy," including, but not limited to gov't policy.
Did Jesus take political sides? Well, there weren't "sides" in terms of party then like there are today, but Jesus repeatedly took the side of the oppressed over the oppressor; the poor over those who impoverish them. And doing so has deeply political implications.
The Roman gov't, after all, did not kill Jesus because he was a nice guy, right? They killed him because he was a threat (or at least a perceived threat) to their political stability.
Are you a church-goer, Edwin? Have you read the Bible much?
"pastor” Wright" is wrong and Dr. King was wrong about Vietnam.
So, given what King had to say about the US, are you of the opinion that he hated the US? That he was in favor of our enemies and, as such, wasn't a real preacher and probably not a Christian?
Will you use the same attacks against King that you do against Wright?
Remember, it was King who boldly called the US, "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Is he a hater, too?
Thanks, Alan, I think you're pretty right on.
Not denouncing, say, our involvement in Iraq from the pulpit amounts to a felony in Dan's eyes.
Accusing the U.S. government of creating AIDS in an act of attempted genocide against blacks? It is, at worst, a "misdemeanor" of going overboard. Apparently, the prophetic tradition of using strong language goes far to excuse Jeremiah Wright's use of language that is both dishonest and frankly deranged.
Far worse than this is Dan's apparent misunderstanding of the fundamental reason Christ came. Indeed, His listeners would have understood His message of good news to the poor and liberty to the captive as political. But these listeners were also looking for a military Messiah to lead a revolt against Rome. They were wrong on both counts.
If political reform is really why Jesus came, then, by any measure, His mission was a failure: neither political freedom nor economic justice was achieved in (or even remotely near) Jesus' lifetime.
No, the only plausible understanding of His sermon in Luke 4 is that the good news is for the spiritually bankrupt, freedom from the shackles of sin.
I would think that, on Good Friday of all days, Christ's mission would be recognized for what it was.
It is my sincere prayer that Dan fully grasps why Jesus proclaimed His work to be finished on the cross. He didn't consummate a political revolution or enact economic reforms from the cross: He saved us from our sins.
If he must continue beating the drum for his vaguely Marxist ideology, I do wish Dan would at least have reverence enough for our Lord and Savior not to distort Christ's mission by subordinating it to Dan's agenda.
Have a good Easter, Dan. I hope you really understand what it is we're celebrating.
Bubba -
If political reform is really why Jesus came, then, by any measure, His mission was a failure: neither political freedom nor economic justice was achieved in (or even remotely near) Jesus' lifetime.
No, the only plausible understanding of His sermon in Luke 4 is that the good news is for the spiritually bankrupt, freedom from the shackles of sin.
Have people stopped sinning? By your criteria, Jesus was a failure at that, too.
Actually, I don't think it is possible to separate individual sin from institutional sin. We sin not just by what we do as individuals but by what we approve of, and if we don't take a stand against injustice and oppression we are giving tacit approval to the oppressors.
wow. Great answer Bruce.
Bubba, I've pointed out to you that you consistently can't understand my words - even though we speak the same language, come from a similar background and are fairly similar in age and upbringing - and you've evidenced it yet again.
1. When I said that pastors committing "misdemeanors" or "felonies," I thought it an obvious hyperbole. They're not actually committing any crime, it was a figure of speech to make a point.
2. I didn't say that political reform is why Jesus came. I simply did not say that, nor did I intend it.
And, as noted to you earlier, if you can't understand what I'm saying in these words here and now, what possible reason would we think you have a great lock on understanding words written 2000-4000 years ago in multiple cultures and languages?
Bubba, do YOU go to church regularly? Read the Bible regularly?
Just curious.
No Dan, Bubba and I, and Drood understand you all too well. You, like Wright, consistently and pathologically bash the U.S. Why I could quite easily pull quotes from this blog and crucify you as someone who hates America. I know you don't but that's what your words consistently convey... to me at least.
As to your typical [and lame] response to Drood's comment, BOTH Jesus' are one and the same... no difference from the two. Your problem with things biblical is your interpretation-- you select the passages that fit your personal philosophy [hating America and just about all she stands for] and ignore all rest. The point is, Drood's picture of Jesus is a better description of WHO Jesus was, WHAT Jesus did, and WHY Jesus took on flesh.
And at the current end of this thread of commentary, because you dislike Bubba calling you out on YOUR rhetoric you choose to question whether or not he goes to church, as if to suggest he doesn't know what he's about?
It's pretty low, Dan. Why do you blog in the radical way you do if you can't take criticism?
Eric, see the note above about failing to understand my words.
1. I asked if they go to church and read the bible because I'm interested to know and because it's pertinent to the conversation.
2. If I "couldn't take" criticism, I wouldn't blog. I don't mind criticism in the least (some might say I'm a glutton for it, given my experience here...), but that doesn't mean I welcome abuse. If someone critiques what I'm saying, I take it for what it's worth, consider it and, if there are holes in their logic or questions about what they have to say, I may ask follow up questions.
It's how I hold conversations. Disagreeing is not the same as attacking. Attacking is the same as attacking.
3. You are correct when you say that you know I don't hate America. You are mistaken when you come to that conclusion, anyway, based no my words. My words have not conveyed a hatred of America. One criticizes what one loves when the loved one is going astray.
As to your typical [and lame] response to Drood's comment, BOTH Jesus' are one and the same.
Did I ever suggest otherwise?
Let me run this down for everyone:
1. Drood stated that "Jesus was only concerned with freeing people from their own sins"
2. Since that is an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Jesus, I corrected Drood, pointing out that the Jesus of the Bible, along with the larger message of the Bible, have a good deal many political implications.
3. By saying that, I DID NOT SAY NOR DID I INTEND that the ONLY reason Jesus came was for political ends. The way you can tell that this is not what I meant is in the fact that I DID NOT SAY IT.
4. Jesus came, according to Jesus,
a. "To give life, and that, more abundantly."
b. "To proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the captive, sight to the blind, the day of God's Favor."
c. "To seek and to save that which was lost."
d. To tell us/show us how to live, to "Love our neighbors," and "Love our enemies" and be peacemakers, and to "turn the other cheek," to tell us not to live a worried life filled with the pursuit of things, to "seek first the Kingdom of God," to pray "God's kingdom come, God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven," etc, etc.
e. He came, according to Peter, to "leave us an example, that we might follow in his steps,"
In short, Jesus came, according to the Bible, for multiple reasons. I didn't say not did I intend that He came to be primarily political or that he came to be political at all.
I said that his message had political implications and show us that Jesus IS concerned about policy to correct Drood's incorrect/incomplete statement.
Dan, just a cursory examination of your posts shows the only Jesus you care to talk about is the Political Jesus. You use this Jesus as club to beat and thrash those you disagree with politically..... you rarely, if ever, mention the Jesus who came to save us all from our sins. In that respect you're no better than the Jews who rejected Him because He came to "Save" sinners, not over-throw the Roman political system. Shame on you.
Furthermore, and getting back to the point of this post, yet another careful read of your selected MLK quotes shows that Martin did not brand America with "Whitey," nor did he say "G.. D... America!" Despite his tone, he used language truthfully, though harshly, about injustice. And he did it all without being racially divisive. Very much UNLIKE Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
I know why you picked those quotes-- at least I have a fair guess. Because the words were harsh toward American foreign policy...... He was speaking your language, or so you thought. And because of the way you think, you assume those of us on the right would cover our open mouths with our hands and cry "Oh, NO! Not MLK TOO!" Hoping we would begin to bash him too. But you see, we're more perceptive than you give us credit for-- we can recognize honest criticism, and distinguish it from brutal racially divisive epithets, and deliberately incendiary rhetoric.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a far cry and a stones throw away from the shadow of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, let alone the man himself.
You insult our intelligence with this post, Dan.
I have somewhat more to say about some of your conclusions, Dan, but I'm late for work.
"..you rarely, if ever, mention the Jesus who came to save us all from our sins..."
There comes a time when we must move beyond infancy and into maturation.
That includes working for peace and social justice. I don't see that as political at all.
Man, I really need to take a lesson in short, pithy, astute responses from folk like you, Marty, and Bruce.
Well said!
You can argue that "working for peace and social justice" is the will of the Father, but you'd be wrong.
....
Wow.
Yeah, you do follow a different bit of Gospel than we do, at least inasmuch as you reject working for peace and justice.
Wow.
Happy Easter, and Christ is risen from the dead, and we are to follow in those blessed steps.
Peace.
What is so WOW! about 2 Peter 3:9? That ALL should come to repentance? How does working for peace and social justice lead anyone to God?
We are asked to work in our father's vineyard. Will we go as He asks? Or will we seek our own path of Peace and Social Justice ABOVE the Gospel of Jesus Christ? He came to seek and to save that which was lost, not get the nation of Israel to rise up against Rome. The only time he ever got "riled up" was to drive the money changers out of the Temple, and that had nothing to do with 'working for Peace and Social Injustice.' It had to do with cleansing that which was supposed to be holy from the defilement of merchandise.... sin.
Jesus came to remedy the problem of sin in the hearts of all mankind. The only genuine peace and social justice that this earth will ever see is when Christ rules this world from the Temple in Jerusalem... One-thousand years of peace and justice.
If you really want peace and justice, that is what you should be praying for... the physical return of Christ Jesus to rule with an iron rod the nations of the world.
And there's a way to hasten that day. There's something you and I can both do to make that day come sooner..... embodied in 2 Peter 3:9... Go out and witness to a lost and dying world. The more laborers in the field the quicker the harvest can be brought in, the sooner Christ can come to claim what's been promised him... what's His by right. Personally, I can think of nothing better than that... a world at peace, albeit forced.
"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven."
This prayer is a request for judgment upon the nations and peoples of the earth, which must come before the peace of Christ.
"O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless...
"...Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the LORD is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off."
--Psalm 94:1-6, 20-23
There's your answer to Peace and Social Injustice.... Prayer.
Really, Dan. For all the study you say you've done, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
My church teaches it's members to do "Risk-Taking Mission and Service". Robert Schnase, in his book, "Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations" writes of Risk-Taking Mission:
"God places congregations in a world troubled by many challenges.....
A majority of people with whom we share the world live with incredible uncertainty because of poverty, hunger, illness, or war.
As followers of Christ, we cannot live as if these things have nothing to do with us. Christ moves us closer to suffering, not farther away. We cannot walk around obvious of suffering, ignoring it and denying it like those who preceded the Samaritan down the road to Jericho. We can't moan about how somebody ought to do something. We cannot merely lift those who suffer in prayer, asking God to do for us what God created us to do for God.
Churches that practice Risk-Taking Mission and Service are dissatisfied and offended (for Christ's sake!) by the abuse of children, the suffering of innocents; the oppression of the poor; and the recurring cycles of addiction, violence, and injustice around them. They hear in the human need of their neighbors the distinct call of God. Against all odds, they figure out a response and offer themselves faithfully and genuinely, even at some cost to themselves. God uses them to transform the world."
Matthew 25: 31-40
Luke 4:18,19
Thank you Marty, for sharing the Gospel.
The only time he ever got "riled up" was to drive the money changers out of the Temple, and that had nothing to do with 'working for Peace and Social Injustice.'
It has been pointed out by some that, when Jesus noted they were selling doves, particularly, in the three synoptic gospels in this story, that it is worth observing that doves are what the poorer folk could afford to bring and offer in order to be right before God...
They came to Jerusalem, and on entering the temple area he began to drive out those selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. He did not permit anyone to carry anything through the temple area.
Then he taught them saying, "Is it not written: 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples'? But you have made it a den of thieves."
The chief priests and the scribes came to hear of it and were seeking a way to put him to death, yet they feared him because the whole crowd was astonished at his teaching.
And it is further rightly noted that he said they had made the temple a den of thieves. Many poor folk coming to Jerusalem (I am told) would bring their own offerings - their own doves. But inevitably, when they arrived, the people in charge of the temple would find a blemish or problem with the offering, and so rejected their offering, meaning they'd have to buy one of the Temple-Approved (TM) Doves.
In other words, many scholars have noted that it was a racket. They were quite literally a den of thieves and it especially hurt the poor, who could not get right with God without paying the religious "protection money."
In short, this story that you have cited, Eric, seems to be EXACTLY about ending the oppression of the poor and, even if you don't accept that interpretation, Jesus specifically called it a Den of Thieves. In some manner, this was a matter of Justice, which is why Jesus (who has seen this injustice happen for all his 33-ish years of his life) gets outraged here.
I think, Eric, that you may be laboring under some misunderstandings about how I spend my time, especially insofar as working for peace and justice.
First off, nowhere have I said that going to protest marches and writing letters to our representatives is my best or even primary way of promoting peace and justice. While our prophets have certainly given us good examples of decrying wrong-doing by our rulers and the powerful and I therefore believe it is useful and necessary at times, merely protesting (STOP THIS WAR!) a policy is not a very effective way of effecting change.
There is a time to protest policies in the public square, to be sure, but if we hope to effect actual change, we need to be smarter than that. Similarly for voting and contacting our representatives. It's how the system works, but it's not the most effective way to get policy changes enacted.
My primary work for peace and justice, then, is in striving to live a peaceful and just life. In teaching my children how to live peaceably. By not taking part in oppressive, unjust systems. By not buying in to the hyperconsumption model of life. By striving to live simply and within my means. By working on a garden and buying from local, responsible, small-scale producers. By avoiding taking part in the overconsumption of oil. By not demonizing the "Other."
Admittedly, I fail at all these and need to continue to work prayerfully and actively to improve by God's grace my actions above.
But this is my primary work for peace and justice.
It's my primary way because the only reliable thing I can do to effect change is to change MY life. If I live in a way that follows the Golden Rule, and show how doing so is the right way to live, others may emulate it in some way or the other. And if we're living sustainably, peacefully, without taking part in oppressive systems and others join us in doing so, then we can democratically come closer to ending oppression and war-making by removing support for it.
Don't feed the monster and it can't live.
Or, put biblically, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Love your enemies. Love your neighbors. Live in solidarity with the least of these. Offer a cup of cold water.
And, if necessary, we might want to engage in public protests at times (as the prophets did), but we should do so understanding that if we're protesting policies in which we take part, well, we're part of the problem, too.
Since I answered your question, I would appreciate your telling me why you asked it: your own interest isn't a sufficient answer, and if it's "pertinent to the conversation", I urge you to explain its relevance.
You're making commentary about the Bible and how Christians "ought" to behave and, if you are unlearned on the Bible or unfamiliar with churches and church history and theologies, well then, that would help explain some misunderstandings we have.
Like this, for instance:
The use of the phrase "institutional sin" risks elevating political or social reform to the same level as the Great Commission, and I don't believe that Christ intended for appropriations bills to be treated as equally important as discipleship.
1. How does the use of the phrase "institutional sin" risk elevating political or social reform to the level of the Great Commission?
2. The Bible talks often about institutional sin. Not giving it that name, of course, but it talks about the systemic sins of unjust weights, unjust rulers, oppressive systems frequently.
Moses demanding that Egypt release the Israeli slaves, for instance, is an obvious instance in which the Egyptian system was dependent upon an oppressive, unjust system of work.
So someone who seems to have a problem with the notion of institutional sin MIGHT be explained if we found out that this person didn't know much about the Bible or Christian/biblical history.
It's also relevant because there are those who love to criticize church-goers and Bible believers who happen not to go to church or read the Bible and hypocrisy never sets well as a critical skill.
I'm glad to hear that you're familiar with the Bible and that you attend church.
A couple other notes, briefly.
1) Other than that we should pay taxes, I see no clear political implications of Jesus Christ's teachings.
(His Kingdom is not of this world. I'm not sure how He could have made that any clearer.)
That we are take care of the poor, for instance, does not necessarily imply that we should support government programs for that cause: it's not at all clear that such charity should be provided by the government rather than by private organizations.
But let's suppose that His teachings have "deep political implications." In Matthew 19, Jesus affirmed that God made us male and female for marriage: could that have a deep political implication for the ideal legal definition of marriage? Can I presume that some here would disagree strongly that? Would I be wrong to presume further that some of the same people who think Christ's teachings justify socialized medicine would invoke the boogie man of "theocracy" against those who think the Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman?
2) I haven't seen it written explicitly here, but some "social gospel" Christians do claim that Jesus was "for" the oppressed and "against" the oppressor.
This claim does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus called the tax collector Matthew to be one of His disciples, when tax collectors were despised as essentially being collaborators with the oppressive, foreign Roman regime. Jesus did not turn away the Pharisee Nicodemus, though He had harsh words for Pharisees in general. Nor did Jesus dismiss the Centurion who asked Him to heal his servant, even though it's hard to think of a more emphatic example of oppressive Roman rule. And, to punctuate things, Jesus ended His ministry by recruiting the Pharisse Saul, who had been persecuting the early Christians, even to death.
Certainly, Jesus doesn't support oppression, but the "us-vs-them" mentality of suggesting that He has no concerned for those who are guilty of oppression is neither helpful nor scriptural.
There are divisions in this world, for instance between the church and the lost. But we're to love our brothers in the church and love the lost and even love our enemies.
The sort of divisiveness that Jeremiah Wright promotes and that some here minimize or even excuse isn't Christ-like.
You may have never intended the conclusions I draw, you may not like that the conclusions I draw are being made explicit, or the conclusions may truly be inaccurate -- my guess is that they're often accurate or logically necessary but inconvenient -- but that doesn't reflect upon my ability to read and understand what you've written.
Do not suggest that drawing conclusions is altogether out-of-bounds, Dan, because you do it, too.
Of course it is okay to draw conclusions based on what people say. It's just when one does so and frequently is wrong, that person may consider being a bit more cautious when they make assumptions. That whole problem with what happens when you ASSUME.
Additionally, a reasonable and polite person would generally - when it's been pointed out that they've inferred something incorrectly - apologize for the misunderstanding. I try to do so.
That seems to rarely happen in some circles, though. In just this series of comments, there have been at least a few incorrect inferences drawn, which have then been pointed out as mistaken and that is the end of it.
The closest thing to an admission of a mistaken inference is your own "If I did so incorrectly, I hope you can at least see and admit that you can give people the impression that political reform is the overriding message of Christianity."
In response to the above, I would point out that this is a blog where I talk about
1. the beauty of God's Creation,
2. the joy and faithfulness of my Christian community,
3. the love between friends and enemies,
4. the sometimes bad policies of the US gov't or of specific politicians,
5. the wisdom in living simply and within our means,
6. the stupidity of not doing so,
7. biblical interpretation of various passages
Among other things.
I would posit that some of that IS indeed, the Good News of God's Word, some of it is a condemnation of bad policy and actions (in the tradition of biblical prophets) and yes, some of it is about political reform.
What would you have me post? An entry where I offer up a Bible passage, then use that to point out a sin or a sinful nature and suggest that I/we/someone needs to repent? What would you like my blog to look like, Bubba? Should I use phrases like "saving power of Christ's blood" more often?
And how, in my writings, are you making the leap from what I've actually said to the inference that political reform is the overriding message of Christianity, which I've NOT said?
Souls, Dan... Souls. Everything else takes a back seat.
Change the hearts (that's BibleSpeak for "Soul"), then you can change enough minds to change the system.
"Among other things"
i.e., winning the lost to Christ. (?) Because truth be told, you rarely, if ever, go there.
"...how, in my writings, are you making the leap from what I've actually said to the inference that political reform is the overriding message of Christianity, which I've NOT said?"
Because, from all appearances, it seems to be your primary, in not only, message.
Where is the love for the Lost? It rarely, if ever, gets expressed here.
Bubba said: "Dan, though Marty's philanthropic work in "Risk-Taking Mission and Service" is no doubt worthwhile, she made no mention the good news of the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life made possible through the death and resurrection of Christ, and no mention of the Great Commission to make disciples."
Bubba, you know perfectly well that it is through "Risk-Taking Mission and Service" that provides the opportunities to show and tell the good news. Please. Don't patronize me with your arrogance.
I sincerely did not know that, Marty, and nothing that you wrote implied that "Risk-Taking Mission and Service" entailed service as a way to share the good news.
I'm glad it does, but I do hope you'll forgive my honest ignorance about your church's program: it was not due to arrogance on my part.
Yeah right.
Drood:
As a preacher Jesus was only concerned with freeing people from their own sins and not from the government.
Jesus (quoting Isaiah):
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because God has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."
{the poor = all people enslaved in sin
Liberty = freedom from sin
Blind = those who do not know about God
Oppressed = those damned to hell also the blind and the poor
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them, "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."
{if this was a political reference the scripture would not have been fulfilled as Jesus was later executed. }
Which Jesus are you talking about, Edwin?
{ I am talking about the Jesus who freed us poor, blind , oppressed sinners from the binds of hell not the binds of government}
Jesus' teachings have deep political implications and certainly would have been understood as such by those who listened to him.
{Jesus’ teaching have deep personal, and spirtual implications}
Similarly, all the prophets had deeply political messages. Policies were wrong and needed to be changed. Now!, thus saith the Lord...
{we are somewhat in agreement but not really, the prophets were political and used war and death to solve problems}
Similarly, Moses' teachings had policy-related implications, as were the judges and Israel.
{judges in Israel was pre-kings read your bible to find out why that is important (can you guess what book, hint begins with “ki” ends with “ngs”}
How are you defining "political"? I'm defining it as "Having to do with policy," including, but not limited to gov't policy.
{I define political as to having to do with politics}
Did Jesus take political sides? Well, there weren't "sides" in terms of party then like there are today, but Jesus repeatedly took the side of the oppressed over the oppressor; the poor over those who impoverish them. And doing so has deeply political implications.
The Roman gov't, after all, did not kill Jesus because he was a nice guy, right? They killed him because he was a threat (or at least a perceived threat) to their political stability.
{Jesus was not a nice guy? The Pharisees killed Jesus because they threatened his teaching, if I recall the Romans washed their hands of it}
Are you a church-goer, Edwin? Have you read the Bible much?
I am a church goers and a reader of the bible and I believe ever single word of it not just the ones that fit today’s world.
Serve the world and you will have the worlds reward. I will serve Christ
So what have we learned, Dan?
That if you read the Bible with all of the social and political messages excised out, rationalized away, or simply ignored you find out that the Bible has no social or political messages in it. QED.
Quel Surprise! ROFL.
The great advantage to reading the Bible with all the social justice and peacemaking parts removed from it is that you can easily read it on a weeknight (you know, where you can't stay up too late 'cause you have to work tomorrow and you're just wanting some lite reading without having stuff to think about...).
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because God has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."
There were still poor people when Jesus accented into heaven.
There was still a oppressive Roman Government
The Roman Government’s oppression got worse after Jesus
Slavery was still around for thousands of years
We still have blind people (since its apparently not a metaphor)
I will just stick to my interpretation where Isaiah mean the bonds of sin and damnation.
And I repeat:
The great advantage to reading the Bible with all the social justice and peacemaking parts removed from it is that you can easily read it on a weeknight (you know, where you can't stay up too late 'cause you have to work tomorrow and you're just wanting some lite reading without having stuff to think about...).
Dan, you can type that all you want: blind people still won't be able to read it.
Actually, wise and compassionate folk have invented ways for the blind to hear the typed words on their computer, so... what's your point?
I didn't know that Jesus proclaimed ways for the blind to hear typed words. I thought He proclaimed recovery of sight to the blind.
"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
Considering that two thousand years have passed since that day and the blind still haven't universally recovered their sight, that seems like a mean practical joke for Jesus to have played. We can't possibly spiritualize that passage, can we, Dan? Doing so is to deny His words and is therefore anti-Christ, right?
My point is this: the belief that Christ proclaimed a recovery of sight to the literally blind and an immediate fulfillment of that proclamation seems unreasonable on its face: two thousand years later, the blind have Braille and text-reading software, but they have not recovered their sight.
Your position that Luke 4:18 must be read literally does not seem reasonable.
Post a Comment