Defining Evangelicalism Down
by Paul Edwards
By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The history of evangelicalism tells a different story.
The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label "red letter Christians," but they are in reality "white space Christians," determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say.
Personal Note: 'White space Christians' sums up the philosophy of the Christian Left all too well. I have nothing to add to that.
53 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thats what I think.
he said:
By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment.
Do you not think it fair to think that conservative evangelicals have brought this on themselves? How often do you read about their efforts to ease the homelessness problem? To advocate for treating God’s creation with responsibility and care? To reach out in love to gays and lesbians? Conversely, how often do you hear about them actively saying stuff antagonistic towards gays? Advocating policies that HARM the environment or the poor?
I think conservative evangelicals have done the lion’s share of convincing all on their own.
And, as you know, I come from that world. I’m well aware that many traditional Christians do, in fact, spend money and time at the homeless shelters and orphanages. God bless ‘em and may their tribe increase! That is what they often did and do here in Louisville with about 1% of their time and money. (And that 1% may be generous).
But that is not what they do with the bulk of their time, energy or money. And so, if it seems that conservative evangelicals are concerned about people’s souls and about them saying the sinner’s prayer and turning from their sins and accepting Jesus as their lord and savior and MUCH less about all the rest, well that is fairly well-earned, don’t you think?
These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label "red letter Christians," but they are in reality "white space Christians," determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say.
May I say that:
1. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God
2. That Jesus came and led a perfect life, showing us the way to live
3. That Jesus taught us some pretty specific teachings about how we are to live
4. That one of the things Jesus taught is that we are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus and by turning from our ways, asking forgiveness and following in Jesus’ Ways
5. That it is VERY important that we follow Jesus example and teachings
6. That Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, our enemies, God
7. That Jesus taught us about the perils of trusting in wealth, about the perils of trusting in human power, about the evils of taking part in oppressive systems
8. That Jesus taught us to live simply, trusting God to provide protection, food, shelter, community
9. That Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with good, to do unto others as we’d have them do unto us
And I could go on and on and on. My faith is built upon Jesus’ words. His Teachings. His Example.
Where in all of that does this supposed “liberal Christian” become a “white space” Christian? Because I’m more modest in making claims about what IS and ISN’T true and right if Jesus didn’t make the claim?
If that’s the case, Lord give us more White Space Christians!
Amen?
Re, "The history of evangelicalism tells a different story."
Yes, it does. But the most recent history of evangelicalism tells that story exactly. And evangelical leaders, on the right, are the ones telling it.
Re, " ... are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Absolutely not! They are defining the Christian mission UP and OUT, liberating it from the shackles of fundamentalism. They are evangelicals, as were the pre-1979 Southern Baptists who nourished me. They are not fundamentalists. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not the same thing. Rick Warren, on the Left? I never thought so. Campolo and Wallis, sure. No clue who Joel Hunter is.
Re, "red letter Christians." I've never understood exactly what that means, although I have a pretty good idea, probably. As far as the "white space" part: ABSOLUTELY. Sign me up. Either the author of Luke meant what he said when he said books couldn't contain all that Jesus said and did that wasn't recorded, or he didn't. But I don't, personally think of that when I think about those two big issues. Abortion bad! That's not the quesion in this country, to me; the question is how best to discourage it -- and making it freaking illegal is not, in my view, the best way to discourage it, considering the liberties imbedded in our Constitution and political heritage. Homosexual marriage is a matter of interpretation of Scripture in light of sciense, hard as well as social -- not unlike the demotion of the earth as the center of the universe by hard science, and what to think about that as a matter of social science. The silence of the Lord on the subject, to me, is almosdt irrelevant considering the overarching evidence of the Lord's love for all.
He didn't. Because it's not in the Gospel of Luke. It's in John... 21:25
No. It's not fair. These two issues have been the hot issues. As the conservative arguments have been solid, such accusations are to deflect attention from them and frame conservatives as goofy for spending so much time on the two issues.
As to other issues, such as homelessmness, are we to trumpet our involvement for the approval of others? What culture changing legislation is being foisted upon us over these other issues? Abortion and traditional marriage are being argued in the realm of public policy where those not religious can participate. It's where the action is, so to speak and so conservative Christians are there seeking satisfaction like everyone else. And frankly, you're not showing love for GLBT folk by enabling them and waving as they sail off further into sinful waters. (This is an issue where you demonstrate that you are a white space Christian. Another term a friend of mine uses is "white out" Christian, using the little bottle of white out to erase those parts of the Bible you don't want to follow, such as the Mosaic Laws regarding sexuality.)
In addition, I think you have invented perceptions of conservative Christians because they don't conform to what you believe to be the proper way to live life.
As to other issues, such as homelessmness, are we to trumpet our involvement for the approval of others?
I'm just telling you my perception of what folk at large think. You are free to think what you want but I'm telling you, as a favor, that the perception of the Religious Right is that they are a crotchedy old group of white folk who don't care much about the environment, gays or the poor but who spend inordinant amounts of time and energy pursuing "white space" issues.
It's part of the reason that so many churches are perceived to be irrelevant. In my opinion.
Believe it or not.
Your perception of anecdote? hardly scientific, neh?
And let's not even start talking about ignoring Jubilee Laws and living simply, when you conveniently dismiss other, equally obvious teachings in Leviticus and elsewhere-- especially those which speak against homosexuality.
THAT's what's meant, I believe, by 'White-space Christian'
But not without a basis in experience.
Are you suggesting that the Religious Right DOESN'T have, as 90+% of its focus, the "saving of souls" and the condemnation of some specific sets of sins (including homosexuality and abortion)?
Myself, I'm quite glad not to state definitively that "Jesus saith" about something that Jesus did not say.
As I've stated, these are the issues being pushed through legislative and judicial channels. Homelessness is not. Homelessness and poverty are being dealt with all the time by both libs (somewhat) and conservs. But they are not culturally impactful as are the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Thus, it is right and natural that these issues would garner the attention it does from those who know them to be wrong.
"Myself, I'm quite glad not to state definitively that "Jesus saith" about something that Jesus did not say."
This goes to exactly what you believe. As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God. Thus, he has indeed said something about it. Again, once should be enough and it's been said twice. It's wrong.
BUT ...
This is stupefying: POVERTY as a symptom of man’s sin???
BLESSED are the poor, dude. How poverty is a symptom of man's sin is beyond me. Please to explain.
Correction, ER... the phrase "blessed are the poor" appears only once in the entire Bible: Matthew 5:3. Here is what it ACTUALLY says:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Compare that to something else Jesus said in Matthew 6:19-21 [still in the Sermon on the Mount]:
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Then there's Jesus' admonishment of Judas Iscariot in John 12:3-8...
"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."
Hmmm. Jesus rewarded Mary for "wasting" a very expensive product, allowing the poor to do without....
Hmmm.
It's one thing to misquote scripture, but it's another altogether to build a doctrine on it. The United States of America could spend 30 trillion dollars to, ostensibly, wipe out poverty. Yet poverty would persist. Jesus said, 'the poor you will always have with you'
Better you should have said, "BLESSED are the poor in spirit, for they shall be rich in heaven." That at least is the gist of Matthew 5:3.
The question then is, what does it mean to be poor in spirit?
As to the following statement:
"How poverty is a symptom of man's sin is beyond me."
I'm happy to explain.
In Walking Wisely, by Charles Stanley...
"There are only two ways to walk in this life--wisely or unwisely. There are only two types of choices--wise or unwise. Throughout the scriptures God admonishes His people to walk wisely."
Proverbs 3:13-18 says:
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her."
Dr. Stanley goes on to say:
"God desires for us to become all that He created us to be. He expects us to develop and then to use all of the talents, abilities, and gifts that He has placed within us. He desires for us to maximize our potential--to become the man or woman He created us to be."
I can't imagine anyone in their right mind disagreeing with that assessment. I'm not dissing anyone, I'm just saying I'd be truly baffled by anyone finding fault in that statement.
Here then is what I believe... God didn't create any of us to be poor. Everyone has gifts that, if used wisely will keep ANYONE from begging. Provided they walk wisely.
To walk wisely, in God's perspective, is to live righteously.... which is possible in the here and now IN Christ Jesus. Paul has said as much.
And what does the Bible say about the righteous?
"I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."
--Psalm 37:25
Now, was Lazarus righteous? Yes, he was carried to Abraham's bosom, whereas the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell. The rich man certainly lived his life unwisely, judging strictly by his end. But Lazarus, was he wise in his walk with the Lord? What mistakes did he make that led him to the rich man's gate begging for crumbs? Aside from the obvious, this parable also illustrates that even the righteous can walk unwisely. And to walk unwisely is sin. Anything short of "the mark" is sin.
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
--James 4:17
It is good, therefore, that all men walk wisely.
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."
--Matthew 22:2-10
Can anyone see it? It's plain as day. I even highlighted the relevant parts. Any takers?
1) What issue?
2) What relevance my choice of scripture and highlights?
The poor we will have with us always means ALWAYS BE READY TO GIVE TO THE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.
The rest of this comment leaves me speechless. How you can somehow derive "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" from Scripture leaves my mute.
This is one of those times where I wonder what Jesus it is you say you follow, what God it is you say you worship. Honestly.
As for your later comment: I'll be your huckleberry. It's another story of GRACE! Come! Come to my banquet table! But they didn't. They had their own ways of gaining their own riches. And so God said: You will burn yourselves up with your own selfishness.
And the servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found who would accept God's Grace, BOTH BAD AND GOOD: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
What, for Christ's sake, do YOU think it means?
I think you need help, brother.
Luke says blessed are the poor. The poor. Period.
And, since Eric believes:
It's one thing to misquote scripture, but it's another altogether to build a doctrine on it.
I'm sure that he'll apologize for misquoting scripture and/or building a doctrine on the misquote?
Ya know, it has been my experience that there are several passages whereby quoting them, you can tell what someone has been taught.
One is to say that Jesus said: Blessed are the poor.
Another is to say that Jesus said, "Sell your belongings, give alms to the poor and follow me."
In each of those circumstances, many traditionalists will think they've "caught" someone misquoting scripture and they'll say, "Ahh, but you've got it incorrect! In Matthew it says..."
Without realizing that we are well aware of what Matthew says but that they themselves are not aware of what Luke says.
And rarely does an apology come for claiming someone misquoted scripture.
I don't think it's biblical illiteracy so much as that in these churches, they tend to NOT look at the passages they don't like. It has to do with what we're taught and not taught.
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
-John 3:3
And without first seeing the Kingdom of God, one cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. Many many poor will miss the Kingdom of Heaven, because they did not believe on the name of the only begotten son of God.
How can they be saved if we never leave the comfort of our church pews?
Well, that would be your call, wouldn't it?
But if I were to say "You misquoted the Bible" and it turned out that you didn't misquote the Bible, I'd be 1.) embarrassed by making such a mistake (since I pride myself on my biblical literacy) and 2.) apologetic for making that kind of mistaken claim.
You are a free agent able to make that sort of decision yourself.
As far as "the meaning is the same," well, says you.
I'm not that "liberal" biblically that I would claim that a passage that says, "BLESSED ARE THE POOR." Period, means something besides "Blessed are the poor." I'm a literalist, that way.
You are free to think that Jesus said something he didn't mean. I think he meant what he said.
(I love it when I can use "conservative" argument styles against the "conservative..." bwa ha ha!!!)
The meaning is the same. I say this because the Poor cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven unregenerated. No one can.
You are suggesting that we are saying that the poor are automatically saved because they're poor. We (I) have not said that. I said that JESUS said, "Blessed are the poor."
It appears you've changed the argument. No one has said that Jesus said, "Automatically saved are the poor."
Do you think that Jesus doesn't mean "blessed are the poor" when he said that? You think he means this other thing that you've argued from white space? That would be ironic.
It is a huge misinterpretation to assume that just because "they" are poor that they will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. They must be born again for that to be. They MUST BE born again.
You also fail to consider the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of God, which I outlined in my previous post.
When Jesus gave His sermon on the mount, He was speaking on the basis that He would be accepted by Israel.
According to Daniel,
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
Exactly 490 years after the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass, while the crowds waved palms and sang Hosannah's to the King. Less than a week after that event, the Messiah was cut off.
Had Israel accepted their King, what would likely have followed were seven more years, of great tribulation to judge the unbelieving world. THEN and only then could the "poor in spirit" enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And, sorry to burst your bubble ER, but my quiz dealt with your preteristic leaning. Namely, that the King [God] had called the Jews to the Marriage Supper but they [the religious establishment] all declined [in rejecting Christ]. When He sent servants out to bring in anyone they could find [among the 'poor in spirit,' and the 'mourning'... among others] the Jews took the Kings servants [specifically Jesus, but all the prophets before Him as well] and "entreated them spitefully, and slew them." So the King sent His armies [the Roman legions] and destroyed their city [and the Temple]............. THEN [to mean, "After the city is destroyed"] he sent out his servants [Disciples of Christ and every Christian that followed] into the highways to gather in all who would come, into the marriage supper for His son. Of course this was going on prior to Titus and A.D. 70 as well. But at some point before or after the destruction of Jerusalem a great veil was placed over the hearts and minds of Jews that made it difficult for them to accept their Messiah.
The tribulation described in Revelation is what takes place after the Church age... not prior to or even in the beginning of. Which means that the events described in Revelation could not have happened in the first century... for many reasons too numerous and time consuming to present right here and now. Suffice it to say, your take on Revelation is bad theology at best.
I chalk up my overlooking of the Passage in Luke to my familiarity with the King James Version which says, "Blessed are ye poor", not Blessed are the poor. I don't know what translation you read from but if it reads, "Blessed ARE THE poor" then that's where we are at odds. My points supporting "poor in spirit" still stand, since no one has really bothered to address them seriously.
You did say this, however:
"you have taken the admonition not to foolishly bank on riches in this life and twisted it into some way to justify ignoring the poor?"
No. I do not justify ignoring the poor. I only say, that Jesus didn't see Mary's offering as "waste." Yes "the poor" could have used three hundred pence, but it would not have solved anything. They would have shortly been hungry or naked or unhoused again. The poor will be with us always because of sin... theirs and the world in general... because they all walk unwisely.
Consider also that by all accounts Jesus and His followers were very generous with what money they had. They gave what they could to the poor. But it was still incumbent upon the recipient of such "welfare" to change their own stations. Every one needed to follow Jesus and learn to walk wisely.
---
I haven't changed the argument Dan. I am defending the same argument I began.
My apologies.
But it IS "Blessed are you who are poor" and NOT "blessed are you who are poor in spirit," in Luke.
In full, then, the passage says (and I say, MEANS):
Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours.
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep.
Can I get a direct and literal "Amen"?!
Are you saying that only the danged saved are recipients of God's love and blessings???
I think I need a break from you for awhile. Yeesh. If I'm scarce for awhile, that's why.
You've proof-texted and let others proof-text you into such a tiny corner you can't do anything but keep grabbing at verses and stringing them together to preserve one false construct on top of the other.
Keep it. NONE of it has anything to do with God or the faith of our common spiritual fathers.
You need delivered, dude. From yerself and yer cettainty and self-confidence.
Okay, I'm game. Would you mind detailing my stack of false constructs? I mean, this is a pretty serious charge to make without the courtesy of an example or two. Or three or four. You did say I'm stacking them one atop another, right? And please, no generalities; give me specific falsehoods.
Forget about hurting my feelings. If I am so, as you say, 'proof-texted' and trapped in a corner then correcting my error is more important than my feelings.
I naturally disagree, but I'm much more curious.
You're right. Those verses, that parable, is very straight forward, but I wouldn't call the verses I offered as 'a setup' for casting Judas in a bad light. The point, I believe, was to 'setup' the stage for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. The entire point of the Gospels is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; to make a payment, once and for all, for the sin of all mankind.
I quoted earlier from the 9th chapter of Daniel. Verse 26 speaks specifically to His substitutionary death, if not the means.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself..."
No, not for himself, but for everyone who will believe on His name and be saved... for the sin of all mankind, that mankind might be reconciled with the God who made him; namely Jesus Himself.
The point of the entire Bible is the redemption of Man. So platitudes like "feed the hungry," and "clothe the naked," among others, while certainly expected of us all-- with consequences for failure --they don't address the greater need of the naked and hungry, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself... the forgiveness of their sins and the promise of Heaven. Which is the point ER and Dan are missing here.
I believe it is a greater crime to concentrate solely on the temporal needs of the hungry and naked. Too many seem interested only in that, while neglecting the need of their souls.
How can you expect to save the soul of someone hungry, cold, and without health care. Especially if every other breath you keep telling them it's their own damn fault for being cold, debt-ridden and homeless.
To me, as an agnostic, you have taken christianity and used it as a cloak to hide your hard heart.
John the Baptist, among other people of scripture, would disagree with you, EL. He was asked directly, according to Luke, about repentence. In his answer, JTB indicates that caring for the poor is directly linked to turning from sin and satisfying the need of the soul.
From Luke 3 (NIV):
7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."
10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked.
11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
That and hundreds of OT and NT give weight to the fact that, for God, feeding the hungry, caring for the widow, standing up for the oppressed are much more than empty platitudes.
Anon-- I said, "...solely on the temporal needs of the hungry and naked." You can feed a man in a soup line, but if you don't minister to his soul and he dies hours later, all you have done is fed him... you haven't pointed out Jesus... as John the Baptist did.
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
--John 1:29
"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire"
--Matthew 3:11
Tending to and caring for the poor and lowly is commanded of God, but so is preaching to them the gospel. To so assiduously work at the one while neglecting the other....
"When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."
--Ezekiel 33:8
Anon further said:
"That and hundreds of OT and NT give weight to the fact that, for God, feeding the hungry, caring for the widow, standing up for the oppressed are much more than empty platitudes."
And I agree wholeheartedly. My point is that for those who talk and talk about how we should "feed the hungry" etc., while neglecting the MOST important preaching of the Gospel, well... what comes out of the mouths of such men sound like empty platitudes... sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.
Jesus preached everywhere he went. He feed the poor, healed the sick..... and preached. We, as disciples of Christ, should do no less. To do one and neglect the other is not what Jesus would do.
I don't expect to save anyone. All I can do is point the way. That's all I'm asked to do. That, and beg them to consider the consequence of rejecting Christ. A hard-hearted man wouldn't bother.
In addition, this country is famous for the many, many tales of immigrants (the legal kind) coming here with nothing and then rising to wealth. God HAS provided by putting us here in the USofA. Is He supposed to spoon feed us? We've had the discussion about charity and who gives. I'll leave it to say that giving is going on and it goes on all the time. But if the takers don't learn the lessons of the wealthy at all, if they live as they always have been without change, poverty will be theirs till death.
But compassion is still the order of the day... of ones Christian walk.
mom2
And then he did so.
Just a couple additional thoughts:
I appreciate what you are saying about balance, and I agree with you.
How about achieving balance by doing charity in the name of Jesus, making it clear that you are serving others in the model of Christ because of what he has done for you? What could be more balanced?
I don't know if conservative Christians or liberal Christians are more unbalanced, I am not particularly interested in those kind of labels. Christians are Christians.
But I don't think an argument that serving the poor is a secondary aim of God -- if that is the argument you are making -- stands up to scriptural scrutiny, considering verses such as the following verses (NIV). (Among the central aims of God, I would submit, are justice in the biblical sense, which means lifting up the lowly.)
"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." -- Micah 6:8.
“You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat. For the breath of the ruthless is like a storm driving against a wall.” -- Isaiah 25:4.
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." -- Proverbs 29:7.
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." -- James 1:27.
“But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” -- Amos 5:24.
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.” -- Luke 1:52-53.
And on and on. (In fact, it's difficult to read the Book of James at length without coming to the conclusion that God strongly favors the poor.)
You have said compassion is the order of the day for the Christian, and perhaps that is where we must find agreement.
A couple quick thoughts on your earlier comment posts:
"The poor you will always have with you," in context, is not about the poor at all, I would argue, but about the Savior, and the length of time that his followers will have Him with them on Earth.
And I am wondering why you corrected ER on the "blessed are the poor" comment, in light of Luke 6:20:
"Looking at his disciples, he said:
"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God."
Do you just like old Matthew better than Luke? :-)
1) You said: "Christians are Christians"
True. But not everyone who calls himself Christian IS Christian. A lot of fuzzy theology gets bandied about here and elsewhere. My purpose in all this is wrapped up in Jude 3-4: "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
Much of what I hear from my detractors needs rebuttal. If this were a one to one, private discussion I wouldn't give that which is holy unto the dogs neither cast my pearls before swine... in simpler terms-- I would not present the Gospel. But since this is a public forum, where anyone from anywhere in the world can drop in and observe without chiming in, I am obligated to defend the truth, AND present the Gospel. There are plenty of admonitions against profitless arguments, but when you can't know who is or is not listening, error must be confronted and the Gospel must be presented. The word will not return void... it will accomplish what it's meant to; either to redemption or condemnation. Either, Or.
I agree that labels are unproductive, but when I say "Liberal Christian" I don't necessarily mean that I believe they are genuinely born again. Furthermore, I'm not convinced the bulk of my "Christian" detractors ARE indeed Christian. But for the sake of comity, I allow that they may be.
2) "I don't think an argument that serving the poor is a secondary aim of God -- if that is the argument you are making..."
No. Serving the poor is NOT a secondary aim. That is not the argument I'm making. My detractors tend to imply that serving the poor is the 'end all-be all' of following Christ. They believe there are many paths to Jesus... that faithful Hindus can achieve Heaven without ever having heard Jesus' name, let alone forsaking Hinduism to become a follower of Christ. They tend to the temporal needs of the poor and downtrodden and neglect their souls. I'm not saying the physical needs of the poor are not important, only that their souls eternal destination is MOST important. We are to be charitable with the means the Lord has blessed us with. Not everyone can give equally, but ALL can and should present the Gospel.
3) "I am wondering why you corrected ER on the "blessed are the poor" comment, in light of Luke 6:20"
I use the King James. ER does not. Neither does Dan. And judging by your use of the NIV.... Well, when I did a word search for "blessed are the poor" the only verse in the entire King James was Matthew 5:3. Luke 6:20 says "Blessed [be ye] poor". Since both Matthew and Luke are relating the same event, and the same speech, the two verses must agree. Luke chose to leave off "in spirit", Matthew did not. And since the Holy Spirit is responsible for the writing of both, they both, again, must agree. Therefore "in spirit" is equally applicable to Luke 6:20.
One thing [among many] upon which ER and I disagree, is the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible-- in terms of doctrine! (ER believes I am an idolator; that I worship the Bible and not God) To wit, the meaning of one verse cannot negate the truth of another, or the whole is corrupt. Everything, theologically speaking, must agree. "Blessed be ye poor" then is equivalent to "Blessed are the poor in spirit"
To further illustrate my point, consider the following verses.
John 10:27-30 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
Sounds alot like "once saved, always saved" right?
Corroborating that verse is this one:
Ephesians 4:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."
Compare these then to Luke 9:62 "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
And Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
Did Jesus contradict Himself? Did the Holy Spirit, working through the author of Hebrews, contradict Himself [Jesus]? Of course not. Since Jesus said once he gives eternal life no one can pluck them out of His or His father's hand, then Luke 9:62 and Hebrews 6:4-6 must have another context.
Many denominations use the latter two passages to definitively say that a saved person can lose the gift of salvation. But this is not true. It was a gift to begin with-- you did nothing to earn it or deserve it, and therefore can't lose it. Romans 11:29 says "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
Someone who is truly saved is sealed unto the day of redemption. False converts prove their spiritual state by falling away from the light.... they are unfit for the Kingdom of God, because only those who are born again are so "fit".
You can only be saved once... as Hebrews 6:4-6 states; it is impossible to fall away and return because there is only one sacrifice for sin, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are truly saved you cannot "fall away..." You can "fall into sin," or "backslide," but there is a remedy for that. It's called "confessing our sins to God who is faithful and just to forgive us our sin." Jesus died once and for all, to save us once and for all. Returning to Jude 3:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once [and for all] delivered unto the saints."
That's unto the Saints... the saved.
The Greek word used for once is "hapax" which means:
1. once, one time
2. once for all
Those who repeatedly run to the altar because they've been told they have to "pray through" to get their salvation back put, as the author of Hebrews states, the Lord to "open shame."
But aside from all this, didn't Jesus say, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." ???
And what is the will of the father? To care for the poor alone? or to preach to them the Gospel as well? to be mindful of what the Lord said to Ezekiel:
"When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."
Shouldn't we be doing both?
My point being, Luke's "Blessed [be ye] poor" is synonymous with Matthews "Blessed [are the] poor in spirit." They are equal in value and meaning.
Tell me... isn't that exactly what all these different translations of God's word do? Take away from and add to?
I'm less worried about making a mistake here and there than I am about being lied to by some flawed translation of the Bible.
But I refuse to get drawn into that argument. Been there done that. It ain't profitable.
Here's my reasoning: Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor..."
Realistically, did Jesus come to preach the Gospel ONLY to the poor? Not the rich as well? How about the middle-class? Was it only the poor who gathered about him on the mount, or in the plain?
Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha; were they poor? If they were could Mary have afforded to buy, let alone waste, a perfume worth 300 pence? What about Zacchaeus [Luke 19]? He was rich. Was Jesus not sent to preach the Gospel to him as well?
In what way then are both the destitute and rich the same? In Matthew Jesus said poor in spirit. In Luke, ye poor. Is Jesus referring to the financially poor? or the spiritually poor? I would venture to say that both the destitute and rich alike were poor... in spirit... BEFORE they were saved by grace, which is a requirement for riches in Heaven, as a child of the everlasting Father. Would it be fair to say that in God's eye we humans are ALL poor-- spiritually AND financially speaking --who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ as savior? Nothing we own is ours... we don't even own our souls.
Perhaps Jesus viewed all of mankind as poor, while also recognizing that some had it far better than others; hence the command to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is a lesson in Godly love... Godliness. For how can we say we love the Father whom we haven't seen, and hate our brother whom we HAVE seen.
Jesus, for all He was God is human flesh, looked at mankind differently than we do. Every word he uttered, as recorded in the Gospels, demonstrates this.
If so, does that not speak to His divinity?
If so why do quite a few modern translations go out of their way to deny it? As in Romans 14:10-12?
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." --King James
"...For we will all stand before God's judgment seat." --NIV
"...we will all stand before the judgment seat of God." --NASB
"...we will all stand before the judgment seat of God" --ESV
"Eventually, we're all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God." --The Message
Only the King James gives Jesus His due as God.
That alone doesn't prove the superiority of the King James, but it speaks volumes on the shortcomings of the NIV, NASB, ESV, and the Message. And there are many other differences that both take away from and add to the Bible, in these modern translations.
The language in the King James may be archaic, but it's easily understood, and is taken from the textus receptus, which is superior by far to both the Alexandrian and Vaticanus manuscripts from which most alle modern translations are derived.
Want a Bible that is more like modern English? Go for it, just don't rely on it for doctrine.
I've read enough to know that I dig the King James' flowery prose but also to know that it has its problems, too.
You like it? That's fine with me, I like it, too. But let's not suggest that one is inherently a better translation than the others.
Are you someone who has a problem with archaic language? Then, FOR THAT PERSON, the KJ would be a horrible version. Do you prefer fluid over technically accurate? Well then, the NIV may be a better choice for you.
Do you want one that is translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek? Then get a Young's Literal Translation.
We all have preferences and that is okay. As long as we don't make the mistake of saying, "MY version of the Bible is the only acceptable one and my interpretation of my version of the Bible is the only acceptable one..."
God promised to preserve His word. In English the best translation is the King James... it's more accurate than any other modern translation. And in terms of doctrine, its waters are the least muddied.