"Jesus wore a Pride flag like a cape
like some sort of gay superman"
is not an historical fact,
but it is an image that appears
faithful to the biblical witness.
famously was asked to support the religionists
and join in with them
to stone an adulterous woman
to death
to kill the woman "caught in the act"
until she was dead as a stone
...beating & battering her bloody, bruised body
with stones until her heart quit beating
her lungs no longer able to exhale
her Self, shattered and shapeless.
Jesus was asked to join in with the religionists
and brutally murder her
righteous, in their rule-following
("rules" defined by them...).
...Jesus did NOT join in with the religionists.
Indeed, Jesus said
the ones with no sins
should cast the first stone
and while the religionists
no doubt
may have considered themselves
damned near sinless
couldn't bring themselves to say it out loud
and so they shuffled away
dropping rocks as they disappeared
in the sand
Jesus wore a Pride Flag that day
like a cape
like a gay superman
16 comments:
Matthew 9
While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Mark 2
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Luke 5
Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Like Jesus, I love a good Pride get together dinner. Like all oppressed groups, they do great dinners.
You could not be more blasphemous.
Marshal - not having been taught what christian faith is or what christian scriptures teach - is ignorant of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit consists.
Marshal is in eternal danger: “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. This sin involves a willful, hardened, and persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's work.”
“Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven….
Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every people anyone who fears him and practices righteousness is acceptable to him….
While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles… Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
…. Now the apostles and the brothers and sisters who were in Judea heard that the gentiles had also accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers[a] criticized him, saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step…
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
Marshal attacked, with no support of course, saying...
You could not be more blasphemous.
I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe in the teachings of Jesus who taught us that we are more beloved than mere rules and who says - even to those considered the worst "sinners" and "deserving of literally a torturous death..." - "Neither do I condemn you."
AND that he said that after shaming the deadly rule-followers who lacked grace and decency and thereby chased them away, saving the so-called "sinner's" life from me who would have tortured and killed her.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe that Jesus taught AGAINST the deadly teachings of rule-givers/enforcers and in favor of Grace and welcome.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
Perhaps it's time you reconsider what you consider "blasphemy."
And wise, good points, all, Feodor.
Marshal, doing his best Chandler Bing-as-Pharisee impression:
"Could you BE any more blasphemous!?"
And the world laughed, recognizing the sad, graceless humor in chandler-marshal.
"I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
You believe in a god of your own making, one you've made in your image and likeness. That's blasphemous. Your insistence on ignoring what Jesus meant when He said He's come to bring Good News to the poor is to corrupt His words. That's blasphemous, to attribute to Christ what He never said, did or intended. I've provided a deep dive in this particular issue and I now present it yet again. You should actually read it this time:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-poor-in-the-gospels-and-the-good-news-proclaimed-to-them/
"I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
Of course He loves me, as I seek to subordinate my life to Him completely (still working on it). But He doesn't love me so much that He'll not have expectations of me regarding that subordination. In my case it's based on His teachings, including those I find inconvenient, difficult and in conflict with my nature and desires.
This clearly isn't the case with you, so your condescension is again unjustified, irrational and illogical. Those He welcomes completely (into His Eternal Presence) are those who repent and accept Jesus as Savior...not those who accept Him on their own terms...like you and yours. That's blasphemous.
"I believe in the teachings of Jesus who taught us that we are more beloved than mere rules and who says - even to those considered the worst "sinners" and "deserving of literally a torturous death..." - "Neither do I condemn you."
AND that he said that after shaming the deadly rule-followers who lacked grace and decency and thereby chased them away, saving the so-called "sinner's" life from me who would have tortured and killed her.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
Yes I do as you again, willfully and intentionally to protect blatant sinners you enable, corrupt this story to suggest that Jesus didn't condemn the adultery of the woman in question. Of course He did or He wouldn't have told her to "sin no more". What's more, He didn't bring this woman to trial and had no reason to condemn her personally, though come Judgement He most certainly will condemn her if she doesn't repent.
And of course we don't know what became of the woman or whether she went back to her lover who wasn't brought forth along with her as the Law demands. That, too, would prevent Jesus from condemning her as there was no co-conspirator present. (It takes two to tango. No lover? Where's the adultery?) Jesus can't condemn her by law in that case (even if He had legal authority in the first place, which He didn't).
"I believe that Jesus taught AGAINST the deadly teachings of rule-givers/enforcers and in favor of Grace and welcome.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
It's blasphemy to suggest that you don't make up your own laws, and ignore those of God you don't like, which is just as bad if not worse, and pretend you're doing His Will.
So yeah, I understand the word "blasphemy" quite well and use it appropriately here. You reject God in favor of your own fictitious god.
Who is Chandler Bing?
The world laughs with me as I mock the likes of you with the truth and facts of Scripture. Indeed, the world pees itself, otherwise it would be weeping in grief at your determination to get the best seat in Hell.
Marshal, when I ask you a direct and rational question, I expect you to answer it. I'm leaving your comment just to show all that you're not answering the questions asked of you and are, instead, just going on to insult-driven, evident-less false accusations. You are slandering and bearing false witness. There are literally rules in the Bible that condemn such activities as being evidence of being NOT part of the realm of God. (If you are a Bible-as-rule-book believer... I'm not).
Marshal:
corrupt this story to suggest that Jesus didn't condemn the adultery of the woman in question.
Jesus:
NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU.
[rolls eyes]
You are your own worst enemy, dear man.
Don't bother answering. I've given you grace and an opportunity to actually respectfully answer questions. You opted not to. YOU opted out of polite discourse. That is your choice. You'll have to live with it.
So, again, don't bother replying further short of beginning with an apology for not answering the questions asked and a second apology for the stupidly false claims and accusations you made and then respectfully answering the questions that were asked of you.
Marshal keeps hanging himself right in front of scripture.
“In my case it's based on His teachings, including those I find inconvenient, difficult and in conflict with my nature and desires.”
What does Paul strain to tell him?
“Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life [note: sackcloth and ashes aren't needed]; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”
I'll make it easier for you, Marshal. Here's the question...
I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
That is, the question is, DO YOU consider the notion of a welcoming God, blasphemous?
Do you consider the notion that Jesus came, in his own words, to preach good news to the poor, blasphemous?
Answer those direct and reasonable questions directly or move on.
Oh, and while you're at it, a good person would begin by acknowledging they did NOT answer those questions directly, and apologize for that.
Be a good person or move on.
Once again, I answered each of these questions directly without equivocation. You can delete me all you like, but that won't change the fact that I exposed your blasphemy and did so easily.
Sigh.
I said and asked...
"I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
The question is: Is it blasphemous to consider God a welcoming God?
Do you believe it's blasphemous to take Jesus' words fairly literally here?
Instead of answering those questions, you offered your guesses as to what I believe, beyond just the question itself...
You believe in a god of your own making, one you've made in your image and likeness. That's blasphemous. Your insistence on ignoring what Jesus meant when He said He's come to bring Good News to the poor is to corrupt His words. That's blasphemous, to attribute to Christ what He never said, did or intended.
I take the passage in question fairly literally (along with the many others like it) and THAT, you theorize is "making a God in my own image."
That is, I DARE to disagree with YOUR personal human opinions on such texts and THAT, you consider, blasphemous. Right?
Daring to disagree with Marshal is, in your pharisaical opinion, blasphemy.
You don't see the blasphemy in your little human claim, do you?
And you did NOT answer the question.
Is it blasphemy to believe in a welcoming God?
Look, you can answer, Yes! It IS blasphemy to believe in a welcoming God if that's what you think. But just SAY so.
Answer the question asked or move on.
As to this...
Your insistence on ignoring what Jesus meant when He said He's come to bring Good News to the poor is to corrupt His words...
Are you suggesting that only YOU and other humans who agree with you are the only ones who get to decide what Jesus meant in passages like this? If so, who died and appointed you God?
You simply are not a god that all such decisions are left to you.
Shame on you for that presumption and arrogance. Your blasphemy. Be better than that.
To point out the second question you didn't answer...
"I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
That is, the question is the simple, Do you believe in a God of Grace and love OR is that notion blasphemous in your mind?
VERY simple, basic typical Christian question.
But instead of answering the reasonable question, you responded...
Of course He loves me
That's an answer to the question, Do you think God loves you?
That's not the question I asked, though, is it?
You continued with this bit of self-incriminization...
... as I seek to subordinate my life to Him completely (still working on it).
Which makes it sound like you theorize that God only loves you because/as you seek to subordinate your life to God.
Works-based salvation, much? Is that actually your theory?
If so, then your answer would be, NO, I do NOT believe in a God of Love and grace, in that God just loves everyone and is gracious to all, willy nilly.
But you didn't answer directly, so I don't know. Here's your second chance: answer the question that was asked and answer directly.
You continued not answering the question, saying...
but He doesn't love me so much that He'll not have expectations of me regarding that subordination.
So, is it your answer that God is SORT OF a loving, kind of gracious God, but only conditionally?
I don't know, because you didn't answer the question that was asked.
Putting down a bunch of words following a question is not, itself, answering the question.
But the vague implications of your non-answer responses are rather troubling from even a traditional conservative theory of Christianity. At their best, conservatives used to at least affirm a God of live and grace, while theoretically rejecting the sort of works-based salvation schemes, such as what you appear to be theorizing.
Here's your chance to actually directly answer the question asked.
Feodor, it appears you're making comments that I can see in my email, but aren't showing up here. Here's this that I see in my email from you:
FEODOR:
I can’t say that the Jesus we read in the gospels is entirely welcoming, though he is always perfectly loving.
Stan, as pastoral leader of the Thugs, repeatedly claims that the love ethic of progressive christians is too prodigal (they erase the parable from their minds), too excessive, therefore dilute and weak.
Jesus, apparently, is tougher, undoubtedly seen as more “masculine, in his Christianity. And there is a sense of that in who he does not welcome very readily. He gives the rich extra burdens that are too hard to bear, or, when the rich die, he (in the role of Abraham) won’t send a poor person to give them a drop to drink. Because they are in Hades.
He excoriates the Pharisees, pastors to thuggery, and the Sadducees, blithe “independent” thinkers like Craig. Even the Pharisees he charms, who invite him to dinner or go to his: they judge Jesus’ prodigal, weak, excessive love for sinners. Prostitutes wash his feet, anoint his head with oil.
But Jesus, in Matthew 25, dictates that our salvation depends upon living out our faith. Not by warring against Mormons and Jews and Catholics, like Glenn.
But in caring for the poor, the marginalized, those crushed by predatory capitalism and whimsical incarceration. And receiving back with open arms the wayward.
Craig claimed last week that you’ve motivated him to make serial posts explicating Matthew 21-26.
The judgment in the last 1/3 of Mat 25 will be his stumbling block.
Because only progressive christians understand the Jesus of the gospels. And only then to the extent that we live out Jesus’ command to love sacrificially. We have to be strong in the Spirit to do so. Resilient.
Not fragile like the puffed up frontier, raging “rhetoricians.”
Dan: Amen. And I don't know why they're not posting! Were there others??
Feodor:
I can’t say that the Jesus we read in the gospels is entirely welcoming, though he is always perfectly loving.
My personal take on it is that God and Jesus ARE welcoming. They are welcoming the rich man to "sell all you have, give it to the poor and come, follow me/join my beloved community..." Like that. They, TOO - WE, too! - are welcome to join Jesus and the beloved community. But we are invited to abandon our privilege and benefits and wealth, even, to join with that beloved community.
To me, the wealth that many of us enjoy (even marginally and relatively) are a threat and a weight... like excess weight to a swimmer: It threatens to pull us under. We who are wealthier are invited to abandon that wealth and privilege and we are welcome to join Jesus and the marginalized in the Beloved Community.
Fair enough?
Thank you for posting it, Dan. No, there haven’t been others. Maybe not this one, too, though. And you don’t have to repost the following either.
Jesus is entirely welcoming to sinners and the oppressed. And by sinners I don’t mean those who commit to denying their sins. The marginalized are downtrodden by the sins of others. Sinners are downtrodden by their own sins.
Jesus came to provide release from the desultory effects of sin in our lives - both our own and the world’s.
And he loved those who were sensitive to and beleaguered by sin.
The Willful, the Avoidant, the Proud, the Brutal - to these he showed an immediate, anticipatory, even prophetic unwelcome. He was harsh and confrontational, even violent once. And once he was dismissive at the table to a Samaritan woman, which we interpret as a move to show her resilient, obstinate faith. Maybe to herself as well.
The welcome and the unwelcome are both demonstratively faithful acts to wake people up to a loving God. Comfort and confrontation both.
The unwelcome, is exactly what the oppressed need to see from God as prophetic witness to Justice at judgment. And as the appropriate move to correct brutalizing acts in thought, word, and deed.
For instance, Black folks cannot and should not abide the centrist behavior of White people toward brutalizing White people. The just attitude of allied White peoples should be nonviolent confrontation. Always.
In the early days of Trump, University forums were held where rhetorically brutalizing panelists were included or were sought to be included. But the community of students most sensitive to hate protested.
(Everywhere I could, I was pressing the point that the Enlightenment ideal of open debate was being used in unconsciously coloring ways because representatives of the raging right were not committed to the faculty of “reason,” the very foundation of democratic debate.)
This was the mortal sin of Whiteness led by liberals.
In the course of those early days such forums were either cancelled or allowed hate to share the stage.
The unwelcome is used to unsettle an unexamining conscience. Shock a numb and a calloused soul.
Now, writers and activists and pundits are calling for mass unifying movements of fighting back and reclaiming law and rights. See the new special edition of The Atlantic as an example. But it looks like liberal White elites, or just the comfortable, are moved to act because they are only now paying a small material cost.
These, say, like David Brooks in the issue, are the most compassionate Pharisees of the Center. And Jesus would be confrontational to them. Sure, together at the table. But these are the nice White people writing.
To the willingly brutal, welcome would come only, only at awakening and repentance.
Post a Comment