|
Jesus speaks through Republicans? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
There's a slogan that applies here that's at least partially based in reality.... "Democrats view compassion by how many people are on government assistance while Republicans view compassion by how many no longer need it."
|
well, then we can put an end to government assitance by making the requirements so that virtually nobody qualifies...
but generally you make a good point. I guess, I give people too much credit. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Apparently Jesus isn't Republican enough.
 |
|
|
| ierxium |
| I'd vote for Jesus if he promised and provided converted wine to the masses. Then we would have a good excuse for acting like stupid drunkards all the time. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Maybe this thread should be renamed "Jesus Speaks through Christians" Or "Christians Choose their Party Affiliation Because.." |
Or
| quote: | | "Maybe this election was a wake-up call to have a serious conversation about what morality means, to look at what sort of country we're becoming." |
BTW, good post speed:D |
|
|
| Reverend_Trance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Why would a moral compass necessarily involve a deity of any kind?
Not exactly sure of your history on Mormonism, but for right now I’ll take your word on it. Your history of gay marriages or “unions” or whatever you wish to call it, as well as your idea of the meaning of marriage is not factually accurate: |
I read the posted article and the links.
I doubt that Jonathan and David were gay. A friend of mine, Will is like a brother to me since we knew each other since preschool, so henceforth we are gay? No, we are just good friends.
Then they talk about the gay centurian and how Jesus healed his "servant" We have no clue the guy could just be his servant. Just because I could be rich does not mean I am screwing my butler.
The mentioned unions I would have to do fouther research on. I was not throwing out pre-Christian era marriage where it was commont to marry multiple wives or your sister-in-law if she was widowed. AFTER Jesus a monagimist Western society gradually formed. Homosexuality has bee around since Noah. But to recoginize it by the local/state/national officals is another story. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Reverend_Trance
I read the posted article and the links.
I doubt that Jonathan and David were gay. A friend of mine, Will is like a brother to me since we knew each other since preschool, so henceforth we are gay? No, we are just good friends. |
True, but in reference to relationships described in the Bible, it's hard to simply depict that this same-sex relationship was merely a "close friend" relationship. The Bible speaks of the merging of "spirit" or "soul" (depending on your Bible version) very rarely if at all between same-sex individuals, and almost always when referring to a marriage scenario between man and woman. It's difficult to depict that which was written between these two individuals in 1 Samuel as anything but a close, intimate, homosexual relationship:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/g...ry/jonathan.htm
| quote: | | Then they talk about the gay centurian and how Jesus healed his "servant" We have no clue the guy could just be his servant. Just because I could be rich does not mean I am screwing my butler. |
OTOH:
| quote: | Michael Kelly wrote of Jesus' attitude towards a same-sex couple as described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: "One day a Roman Centurion asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favourite male slave to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Graeco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay relationship,' we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by — their faith and love." Kelly implies that Jesus' sensitivity towards the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual orientation. 1
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/gayjesus.htm |
Now I think his last assertion is a bit of a stretch, however I do think it should be taken on face value that historians are familiar with the familial practices of Roman Centurions.
I leave room for correction of any evidence to the contrary.
| quote: | | The mentioned unions I would have to do fouther research on. I was not throwing out pre-Christian era marriage where it was commont to marry multiple wives or your sister-in-law if she was widowed. AFTER Jesus a monagimist Western society gradually formed. Homosexuality has bee around since Noah. But to recoginize it by the local/state/national officals is another story. |
The citations given clearly demonstrated post-Jesus era marriage instances to the contrary of your assertions. Were these likely the exception and not the rule? Of course, nevertheless their existence are well documented.
And I don't deny the lack recognition of local/state/national officials, but these bodies of government haven't existed in the true sense of the word for very long historically, have they? Regardless, homosexual "unions" have existed and have been excepted for quite some time now. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Jesus Christ!The Republican Party does not have the Jesus Christ Logo :wtf: |
What did I just say earlier?:
| quote: | | That is wholly irrelevant to my question at hand. We can expand further on the political implications later down the road when we get there, but right now I think it's more pertinent to examine these "traditional values" a little closer, and who exactly lines up with them better in terms of Christianity. |
I was specifically trying to refer to the Christian Right, Speed. What part of my assertions do you fail to comprehend?
You continue to try to pull the broader political party within my question, which is NOT what I am trying to do, at least not yet. Why the hell can't you help yourself here? If you cannot answer my questions as a Christian Right speaker, kindly stop ing answering at all.
| quote: | Because traditional American values don't need to have anything to do with religion!The Republicans don't get it either, they just get it a lil bit more than the Democrats..... In the midwest and south, there is a building mentality that the Democratic party defends those who exhibit lousy choices in life and that those with all the answers and most logical views are a long list of Hollywood celebrities and left-wing money-bags like George Soros..... When people listen to the views of people like Michael Moore, George Soros etc, they hear contempt and disdain for people who work hard for a living, mothers that raise children and people that happen to like shooting their food once in awhile....... Kerry tried to distance himself from these people, but he did not do so with any credibility whatsoever....as was evidenced by Michael Moore sitting RIGHT NEXT TO a former President during the DNC convention.. Moore, for better or worse should have been watching the convention on a 13" monitor in the basement...(Or maybe in a donut shop down the street)
As I've said before, it's about perception not reality. It's also about results, not intentions....
In many cases, I see that while they have good intentions, the programs supported mainly by Democrats have "less than ideal" results to say the least...... So I view them as being out of touch with moral values because they don't realize that reality doesn't care about your intentions....
There's a slogan that applies here that's at least partially based in reality.... "Democrats view compassion by how many people are on government assistance while Republicans view compassion by how many no longer need it."
I think it's far better when people can find the jobs to earn their own way than for them to be reliant on handouts..... Anything I can do to foster the environment where they do have access to jobs (worldwide, not just here in the US) instead of government handouts as their sole means of survival, I'll support..... The system that does that the best is a free market economy. The system that is the worst is socalism
Why even try to ask a question completely out of context to what the Republican Party stands for. The party lays out its morals position. If the Christians want to believe in this party then maybe this is why:
Quote:
Its that simple.
Taken from:
Maybe this thread should be renamed "Jesus Speaks through Christians" Or "Christians Choose their Party Affiliation Because..":toothless |
Alright, since you're desperate to include the broader political party in this question, I'm going to open up a new thread and specifically address those implications. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread on the specific scale of Christian Fundamentalism/Christian Right and their terms of "moral values"
Fair enough? |
|
|
| Dave Piazza |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Apparently Jesus isn't Republican enough.
|
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What did I just say earlier?:
I was specifically trying to refer to the Christian Right, Speed. What part of my assertions do you fail to comprehend?
You continue to try to pull the broader political party within my question, which is NOT what I am trying to do, at least not yet. Why the hell can't you help yourself here? If you cannot answer my questions as a Christian Right speaker, kindly stop ing answering at all.
Alright, since you're desperate to include the broader political party in this question, I'm going to open up a new thread and specifically address those implications. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread on the specific scale of Christian Fundamentalism/Christian Right and their terms of "moral values"
Fair enough? |
Let me speak for the Christian Right:
"I do not view politics through the Jesus Telescope"
Geez..This thread really shows how out of touch some liberals are.
Lets see...Once again It's about perception. Many Christians will vote for the person they think is the closest to the "ideal leader".
When John Kerry got up and said that he though abortion was wrong but would do nothing to stop it and in fact said that a woman's choice is more important than stopping abortion,...... the Pro-Life Christians are going to hold that against him...... Had he just said that he doesn't want to see abortions on such a large scale and left it at that, he wouldn't have gotten such a negative reaction on moral issues......
When Bush stands up and says he's for an ammendment banning gay marriage (knowing full well it would never pass so he'll never be held to his promise), he's putting the "moral majority" further into his pocket.......
It's about perception, not reality.
We all know how Christians feel towards some issues...now which party appeals to them? You are trying to hammer a hammer with a nail. :cool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Let me speak for the Christian Right:
"I do not view politics through the Jesus Telescope"
Geez..This thread really shows how out of touch some liberals are. |
Then they are nothing shy of being hypocritical believers, period.
| quote: | | Lets see...Once again It's about perception. Many Christians will vote for the person they think is the closest to the "ideal leader". |
Then they are nothing shy of being hypocritical believers, period.
You think by increasing font size will enhance your point any further?
Since when was it considered acceptible to sway from the teachings of Jesus?
Screw the "ideal leader" bull - wouldn't they want to vote for a group that is more in line with the teachings of Jesus? Why or why not?
| quote: | When John Kerry got up and said that he though abortion was wrong but would do nothing to stop it and in fact said that a woman's choice is more important than stopping abortion,...... the Pro-Life Christians are going to hold that against him......
Had he just said that he doesn't want to see abortions on such a large scale and left it at that, he wouldn't have gotten such a negative reaction on moral issues...... |
If they're going to be that misunderstood between what his religious beliefs hold vs. what his political policies hold, and that he is wise not to intermingle the two as much as possible, then there simply is no hope for their ignorance:
| quote: | I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith.
-----
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment. You can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm |
Kerry simply stated that his beliefs against abortion could not be legislated, and that he was unwilling to undo a Constitutional right, and that he was willing to allow third trimester abortions for sake of the mothers health, or in cases of rape and incest. This is, of course, highly mainstream thought on abortion, and to a certain extent in line with some folks on the Christian Right.
The extremists on the Christian Right, however, either blatantly misinterpreted this or staunchly disagreed with his view because they give no exception to the mother's life. How they can continue to believe that is abso-ing-lutely beyond my comprehension, but I really don't think I could say anything further on it.
| quote: | | When Bush stands up and says he's for an ammendment banning gay marriage (knowing full well it would never pass so he'll never be held to his promise), he's putting the "moral majority" further into his pocket....... |
Which reminds me, why didn't Bush give a straightforward answer to the question on abortion during the debates? Why did he dodge the question?
| quote: | | It's about perception, not reality. |
You can dispense with this repetitive statement, Speed. Believe me I know this concept all too well, especially after this election.
But it is not what I'm arguing, is it?
I am arguing the facts of the beliefs of the Christian Right and how they may (or may not) conflict with their candidate choice. perception for just a moment and please attempt to argue the belief.
| quote: | | We all know how Christians feel towards some issues...now which party appeals to them? |
Which party is more in step with the teachings of Jesus? You seem to continue to dodge this question. Enough with the "appeal" and "perception" rhetoric, what about their core fundamental beliefs that Jesus had taught them? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
You decide who holds the "moral values" of Jesus better:
| quote: | Congratulatory letter to President George W. Bush from Dr. Bob Jones III
November 3, 2004
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!
In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.
Christ said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour” (John 12:26).
The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you—that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.
Best wishes.
Sincerely your friend,
Bob Jones III
President
BJIII:lw
PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel. They applauded loudly their approval.
When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of the Senate, they cheered again.
On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during your first term. Nonetheless, we could not be more thankful that God has given you four more years to serve Him in the White House, never taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes off a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows the Bible to be eternally true.
http://www.bju.edu/letter |
-vs.-
| quote: | 'Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked': An Interview with Tony Campolo
Interview by Laura Sheahen
BeliefNet.com
Friday 12 November 2004
Speaking out on gays, women and more, a progressive evangelical says 'We ought to get out of the judging business.'
Evangelical leader, sociology professor, and Baptist minister Tony Campolo made headlines in the 1990s when he agreed to be a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton. A self-described Bible-believing Christian, he has drawn fire from his fellow evangelicals for his stance on contemporary issues like homosexuality. He talked with Beliefnet recently about his new book, Speaking My Mind.
It's a common perception that evangelical Christians are conservative on issues like gay marriage, Islam, and women’s roles. Is this the case?
Well, there's a difference between evangelical and being a part of the Religious Right. A significant proportion of the evangelical community is part of the Religious Right. My purpose in writing the book was to communicate loud and clear that I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.
When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?
There are a group of evangelicals who would say, "Wait a minute. We’re evangelicals but we want to respect Islam. We don’t want to call its prophet evil. We don’t want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our Islamic brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war."
We also raise some very serious questions about the support of policies that have been detrimental to the poor. When I read the voter guide of a group like the Christian Coalition, I find that they are allied with the National Rifle Association and are very anxious to protect the rights of people to buy even assault weapons. But they don’t seem to be very supportive of concerns for the poor, concerns for trade relations, for canceling Third World debts.
In short, there’s a whole group of issues that are being ignored by the Religious Right and that warrant the attention of Bible-believing Christians. Another one would be the environment.
I don’t think that John Kerry is the Messiah or the Democratic Party is the answer, but I don’t like the evangelical community blessing the Republican Party as some kind of God-ordained instrument for solving the world’s problems. The Republican Party needs to be called into accountability even as the Democratic Party needs to be called into accountability. So it’s that double-edged sword that I’m trying to wield.
Are the majority of evangelicals in America leaning conservative because they see their leaders on TV that way? Or is there a contingent out there that we don’t hear about in the press that is more progressive on the issues you just talked about?
The latest statistics that I have seen on evangelicals indicate that something like 83 percent of them are going to vote for George Bush and are Republicans. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion and homosexuality.
These are important issues, but isn’t poverty an issue? When you pass a bill of tax reform that not only gives the upper five percent most of the benefits, leaving very little behind for the rest of us, you have to ask some very serious questions. When that results in 300,000 slots for children's afterschool tutoring in poor neighborhoods being cut from the budget. When one and a half billion dollars is cut from the "No Child Left Behind" program.
In short, I think that evangelicals are so concerned with the unborn—as we should be—that we have failed to pay enough attention to the born—to those children who do live and who are being left behind by a system that has gone in favor of corporate interests and big money.
So as an evangelical, I find myself very torn, because I am a pro-life person. I understand evangelicals who say there comes a time when one issue is so overpowering that we have to vote for the candidate that espouses a pro-life position, even if we disagree with him on a lot of other issues.
My response to that is OK, the Republican party and George Bush know that they have the evangelical community in its pocket—[but] they can’t win the election without us. Given this position, shouldn’t we be using our incredible position of influence to get the president and his party to address a whole host of other issues which we think are being neglected?
Like what you just said - poverty, or our foreign policy?
Exactly. And we would also point out that the evangelical community has become so pro-Israel that it is forgotten that God loves Palestinians every bit as much. And that a significant proportion of the Palestinian community is Christian. We’re turning our back on our own Christian brothers and sisters in an effort to maintain a pro-Zionist mindset that I don’t think most Jewish people support. For instance, most Jewish people really support a two-state solution to the Palestinian crisis. Interestingly enough, George Bush supports a two-state solution.
He’s the first president to actually say that the Palestinians should have a state of their own with their own government. However, he’s received tremendous opposition from evangelicals on that very point.
Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible? Are they adhering to the kinds of teachings that Christ made clear?
In the book, I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry—their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors.
They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church. In Galatians, it says that in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus. In the Book of Acts, the Bible is very clear that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Church that both men and women begin to prophesy, that preaching now belongs to both men and women. Phillip had four daughters, all of whom prophesied, which we know means preaching in biblical language. I’d like to point out that in the 16th chapter of Romans, the seventh verse, we have reference to Junia. Junia was a woman and she held the high office of apostle in the early Church. What is frightening to me is that in the New International Translation of the Scriptures, the word Junia was deliberately changed to Junius to make it male.
I’m saying, let’s be faithful to the Bible. You can make your point, but there are those of us equally committed to Scripture who make a very strong case that women should be in key leaderships in the Church. We don’t want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.
What position do you wish American evangelicals would take on homosexuality?
As an evangelical who takes the Bible very seriously, I come to the first chapter of Romans and feel there is sufficient evidence there to say that same-gender eroticism is not a Christian lifestyle. That’s my position.
So you mean homosexual activity?
That’s right. What I think the evangelical community has to face up to, however, is what almost every social scientist knows, and I’m one of them, and that is that people do not choose to be gay. I don’t know what causes homosexuality, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. There isn’t enough evidence to support those who would say it’s an inborn theory. There isn’t enough evidence to support those who say it’s because of socialization.
I’m upset because the general theme in the evangelical community, propagated from one end of this country to the other--especially on religious radio--is that people become gay because the male does not have a strong father image with which to identify. That puts the burden of people becoming homosexual on parents.
Most parents who have homosexual children are upset because of the suffering their children have to go through living in a homophobic world. What they don’t need is for the Church to come along and to lay a guilt trip on top of them and say “And your children are homosexual because of you. If you would have been the right kind of parent, this would have never happened.” That kind of thinking is common in the evangelical Church and the book attacks on solid sociological, psychological, biological grounds.
But even if evangelicals came to believe that it was not a choice, how should they approach the topic?
Well, beyond that, they seem to offer an absolute solution to the problem. They are saying, “We can change every gay. We can change every lesbian.” I have heard enough of the brothers and sisters give testimonies of having changed their sexual orientation to doubt them…I believe them. But that’s rare: people who stand up and say, “I was gay but Jesus came into my life and now I’m not homosexual anymore.”
But the overwhelming proportion of the gay community that love Jesus, that go to church, that are deeply committed in spiritual things, try to change and can’t change. And the Church acts as though they are just stubborn and unwilling, when in reality they can’t change. To propose that every gay with proper counseling and proper prayer can change their orientation is to create a mentality where parents are angry with their children, saying, "You are a gay person because you don’t want to change and you’re hurting your mother and your father and your family and you’re embarrassing us all."
These young people cannot change. What they are begging for, and what we as Church people have a responsibility to give them, is loving affirmation as they are. That does not mean that we support same-gender eroticism.
What do you wish evangelicals might accept in terms of salvation for non-Christians?
We ought to get out of the judging business. We should leave it up to God to determine who belongs in one arena or another when it comes to eternity. What we are obligated to do is to tell people about Jesus and that’s what I do. I try to do it every day of my life.
I don’t know of any other way of salvation, excerpt through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, "Are only Christians going to get to heaven?" I can’t answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience. I do not claim to be able to read the mind of God and when evangelicals make these statements, I have some very serious concerns.
For instance, they say unless a person accepts Jesus as his personal savior or her personal savior, that person is doomed forever to live apart from God. Well, what about the many, many children every year who die in infancy or the many children who die almost in childbirth and what about people who are suffering from intellectual disabilities? Is there not some grace from God towards such people? Are evangelical brothers and sisters of mine really suggesting that these people will burn in hell forever?
And I would have to say what about all the people in the Old Testament days? They didn’t have a chance to accept Jesus.
I don’t know how far the grace of God does expand and I’m sure that what the 25th chapter of Matthew says is correct--that there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day as to who receives eternal life and who doesn’t. But in the book I try to make the case that we have to stop our exclusivistic, judgmental mentality. Let us preach Christ, let us be faithful to proclaiming the Gospel, but let’s leave judgment in the hands of God.
But in the book you also mention the decline of mainline churches. Some people would say that this lack of taking a firm stand is wishy-washy, and that if evangelicalism is infected by relativism, that could be its downfall as well.
I didn’t say anything that was relativistic. I am just saying that when we don’t know what we’re talking about, we shouldn’t make absolute statements. And we don’t know how God will judge in the end. We do not know the mind of God.
As for mainline churches declining, my own particular analysis is that they're declining because they have been so concerned about social justice issues that they forgot to put a major emphasis on bringing people into a close, personal, transforming relationship with God. The Pentecostal churches, the evangelical churches, attract people who are hungry to know God, not just as a theology, not just as a moral teacher, not just as a social justice advocate, but as someone who can invade them, possess them, transform them from within, strengthen them for their everyday struggles, enable them to overcome the guilt they feel for things in the past.
Mainline churches have not sufficiently nurtured that kind of Christianity. They believe in it, they articulate it, it’s not where they put enough emphasis. They are not putting enough emphasis on getting people into a personal, I use the word mystical, transforming relationship with Christ.
I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society—to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls "the fruit of the Spirit." Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect the one for the other.
In your book, you put forward a sort of ideal creed for 21st-century evangelicals. What’s most crucial to understand about the additions you made to this creed?
The Apostle’s Creed I think is the ultimate measure for Christians. Some say it goes back as far as 1800 years. It has been the standard statement of faith that the Church has maintained, and I wanted to say, "An evangelical is someone who believes in the doctrines of the Apostle’s Creed." However, the thing that evangelicals would add to the Apostle’s Creed is their view of holy scripture. They contend, and I contend, that the Bible is an infallible message from God, inspired. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and [the Bible] is a message that provides an infallible guide for faith and practice.
And not only that. It's necessary to know Jesus in an intimate and personal way. That's what it means to be an evangelical. I don't think it means evangelicals are necessarily in favor of capital punishment. I'm one evangelical that is opposed to capital punishment. I do not believe being an evangelical means women should be debarred from pastoral ministry. I believe women do have a right to be in ministry. It doesn't mean evangelicals are supportive of the Republican party in all respects, because here's one evangelical who says "I think the Republican party has been the party of the rich, and has forgotten many ethnic groups and many poor people."
I am an evangelical who holds to those three positions [Creed, Bible, personal relationship with Jesus] and is a strong environmentalist. I am an evangelical who raises very specific questions about war in general, but specifically the war in Iraq. The evangelical community has been far too supportive of militarism.
You were criticized when you counseled Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Are you still in touch with Clinton?
Yes, and very much in the way I was before: trying to be a faithful follower of Jesus. I think it's the task of Christians to speak truth to power.
The president of the United States called upon me to help him and nurture him into some kind of relationship with God. He obviously had strayed away from what he knew was right, and he called me one day and said can you help me?
I don't know what you're supposed to say to that: "I'm sorry, but evangelicals only pray with Republicans?"
I was appalled that evangelical leaders wrote me nasty letters and said you should have no time for this man after what he's done to this country, to Monica Lewinsky, to his family. I can't understand that mentality. We're talking about being the follower of a Jesus who would never turn his back on any person seeking help.
If you're an evangelical, you should believe that every person, no matter how low or high, is capable of being converted, of repentance.
If John Kerry or George W. Bush were to call you up and ask for your guidance on issues facing America today, what would you tell each of them in turn?
To Kerry, I think my major issue would be "Do you understand us? Do you understand evangelicals and why we're so upset about the pro-life issue? Do you understand why we believe all life is sacred?" I'd encourage him to do justice and to do righteousness.
To George Bush, I'd say "The God of scripture is a God who calls us to protect the environment. I don't think your administration has done that very well. The God of scripture calls us to be peacemakers. We follow a Jesus who said those who live by the sword will die by the sword, who called us to be agents of reconciliation."
I would point out to George Bush that the Christ that he follows says "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy"-which doesn't go along with capital punishment.
I would say different things to each candidate, but I would respond instantaneously to the invitation to speak to each of them. All the way to the White House, I would be praying, "God, keep me from chickening out. Help me to not be so overawed by the high office of these people that I fail to recognize I answer to a higher authority."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15052_1.html |
|
|
|
| TheVrk |
without getting too deep, Jesus 10000000000000%
DOES NOT SPEAK FOR REPUBLICANS:whip: :whip:
ANYONE who believes this is COMPLETELY lost.
i REALLY resent that statement:mad:
please dont fall victim to republican GARBAGE,
cause it is not only untrue, but the FURTHEST thing possible from true |
|
|
|
|
