Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.
George Santayana
Showing posts with label Sojourners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sojourners. Show all posts
Friday, April 6, 2012
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Marriage: Tearing down a false definition
A sojourners discussion, after one poster belittled marriage as depending on the good intentions of the nearest male:
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/08/11/im-not-that-kind-of-feminist/
The definition of marriage that has been attacked by self-styled “feminists” for decades, and which is still under attack, is not marriage as established by God. Marriage, like all of God's Law, is not designed to promote one sex over the other, or even one human religion as “the best.” It is part of God's loving design to bless all of His good creation. Abraham was promised that His seed would bless all the earth. This promise has come true exactly to the extent the blessing has been accepted. But our society has substituted a secular religion (or religion-equivalent, if you insist). The practice of this dominant religion obviously isn't working, yet the blame falls on Christianity, unjustly, and Christians, occasionally with good cause. All of the world's major religions have surprisingly similar definitions of what marriage is and isn't. Those who believe in common grace aren't surprised, but they are saddened that our culture, almost alone across the globe, has such open scorn for what a loving God created and pronounced "very good"
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Jim Wallis v. Religious Right, cont.
I've been asked 3 questions:
Q1. "In what manner were these people [Calif. fertility clinic, whose persecution only Pastor Jeff seems willing to defend]
following the direct commands/example of Christ" (Pastor Jeff asked this one 3 times):
A1.When Jesus was asked "What must I do to inherit eternal life" the first part of his answer was the straightforward part that many of the posters here seem to be ignoring:
JESUS TOLD THE MAN TO OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
That is so basic that it's embarrassing to have to repeat it here. Then, in the more memorable part of the answer, Jesus cut to the heart of the matter: the man's possessions were standing between him and Jesus. (A common problem for Americans of any political stripe.)
"Go, sell your possessions” was NOT a command to supererogation, or a statement that helping the poor, or forcing others to do so via taxation, releases you from the basic obligations of the Ten Commandments.
Q2. “What party believes in forcing people to do things against their consciences?”
A2. The party that supports suing Christians who won't fertilize a gay couple. There are many perfectly good citizens who identify as GLBTG. But I say the clinic made the right call in not fertilizing a couple so filled with hate that they took the clinic to court for following Jesus. (Note that the Republicans, most of whom support Obama's war in Afghanistan, still allow for conscientious objection to military service.)
Q3., this one from BlueDeacon “What difference will just one more voice make?”
A3., Again, Jim should be that “just one more voice” speaking out clearly against abortion—not to make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. He does seem rather too concerned about his public image; I'm afraid I can't help with that. But supporting the Stupak Amendment was his big chance to stand against the tide of partisan divisiveness. Last March he left Stupak hanging, and joined with Nancy Pelosi, who might not even know who Jim Wallis is.
Q1. "In what manner were these people [Calif. fertility clinic, whose persecution only Pastor Jeff seems willing to defend]
following the direct commands/example of Christ" (Pastor Jeff asked this one 3 times):
A1.When Jesus was asked "What must I do to inherit eternal life" the first part of his answer was the straightforward part that many of the posters here seem to be ignoring:
JESUS TOLD THE MAN TO OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
That is so basic that it's embarrassing to have to repeat it here. Then, in the more memorable part of the answer, Jesus cut to the heart of the matter: the man's possessions were standing between him and Jesus. (A common problem for Americans of any political stripe.)
"Go, sell your possessions” was NOT a command to supererogation, or a statement that helping the poor, or forcing others to do so via taxation, releases you from the basic obligations of the Ten Commandments.
Q2. “What party believes in forcing people to do things against their consciences?”
A2. The party that supports suing Christians who won't fertilize a gay couple. There are many perfectly good citizens who identify as GLBTG. But I say the clinic made the right call in not fertilizing a couple so filled with hate that they took the clinic to court for following Jesus. (Note that the Republicans, most of whom support Obama's war in Afghanistan, still allow for conscientious objection to military service.)
Q3., this one from BlueDeacon “What difference will just one more voice make?”
A3., Again, Jim should be that “just one more voice” speaking out clearly against abortion—not to make a difference, but because it's the right thing to do. He does seem rather too concerned about his public image; I'm afraid I can't help with that. But supporting the Stupak Amendment was his big chance to stand against the tide of partisan divisiveness. Last March he left Stupak hanging, and joined with Nancy Pelosi, who might not even know who Jim Wallis is.
Monday, September 14, 2009
From a thread about nationalization of health care
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/10/obamas-health-care-speech-hope-over-fear/#comment-16559995
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6202/what-right-to-health-care
Check out this column from the Boston Globe about what a “right” is, and isn't. The Bill of Rights is about freedom; liberal elitists and their fellow travelers like Jim Wallis have turned it into an entitlement, an obligation that impinges on the freedoms of others. Instead of deeds of mercy, which the Bible commands in no uncertain terms, Rev. Jim is substituting the secular notion of entitlement: something someone else is forced to do for me, for free, regardless of my behavior. There's a world of difference.
True, the Canadian system is technically independent of the US but their people, as patients, aren't. That should be obvious [from their travel to the US for urgent treatment, and their use of our medical schools and privately manufactured medical products]. I know little about European systems; there may be something or a lot to learn from them. But not if we don't get the fundamentals of what is a right and what is personal responsibility straight from the beginning. And not if we don't tell the truth: that Obama and Jim are steering us in the disastrous direction of nationalization regardless of the satisfaction of the majority with many essential aspects of the current private system.
There also was an earlier ref on this site to this column:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
It's well known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_primary_care;_ylt=Akup8mKE8f.5OwsjV4kAZCT34494;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1aWU0OWJvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3ByaW1hcnlfY2FyZQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM1MG1pbGxpb25uZXc-), that there aren't enough primary care physicians to handle a sudden influx of people with free or subsidized government insurance. True, primary care CAN save costs later on, but will all these new patients pay any better attention than you and I? Ten or 20 million more people being told to quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise? The emergency is not about health care delivery or insurance, but public health—people are failing to take elementary steps to better health. It appears that Obama has no plan to deal with this other than to insist that his plan will solve everything. Yeah, right. That is so wildly optimistic as to border on outright falsehood.
While I am indeed impressed with our new Surgeon General's dedication to the health of the poor, I still feel her weight sends the wrong message: look how far I got by ignoring medical advice. So she is a good, very good, person, but a rotten example of the preventive care that is our only hope for real savings in a plan that refuses to limit malpractice abuse. Please don't dismiss this as criticizing someone with a problem I don't have--in fact, bad food is too readily available and inexpensive to the poor in America. If this is addressed, as a priority far higher than the socialization of medicine, Obama will have done some good.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6202/what-right-to-health-care
Check out this column from the Boston Globe about what a “right” is, and isn't. The Bill of Rights is about freedom; liberal elitists and their fellow travelers like Jim Wallis have turned it into an entitlement, an obligation that impinges on the freedoms of others. Instead of deeds of mercy, which the Bible commands in no uncertain terms, Rev. Jim is substituting the secular notion of entitlement: something someone else is forced to do for me, for free, regardless of my behavior. There's a world of difference.
True, the Canadian system is technically independent of the US but their people, as patients, aren't. That should be obvious [from their travel to the US for urgent treatment, and their use of our medical schools and privately manufactured medical products]. I know little about European systems; there may be something or a lot to learn from them. But not if we don't get the fundamentals of what is a right and what is personal responsibility straight from the beginning. And not if we don't tell the truth: that Obama and Jim are steering us in the disastrous direction of nationalization regardless of the satisfaction of the majority with many essential aspects of the current private system.
There also was an earlier ref on this site to this column:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
It's well known (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_primary_care;_ylt=Akup8mKE8f.5OwsjV4kAZCT34494;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1aWU0OWJvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3ByaW1hcnlfY2FyZQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM1MG1pbGxpb25uZXc-), that there aren't enough primary care physicians to handle a sudden influx of people with free or subsidized government insurance. True, primary care CAN save costs later on, but will all these new patients pay any better attention than you and I? Ten or 20 million more people being told to quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise? The emergency is not about health care delivery or insurance, but public health—people are failing to take elementary steps to better health. It appears that Obama has no plan to deal with this other than to insist that his plan will solve everything. Yeah, right. That is so wildly optimistic as to border on outright falsehood.
While I am indeed impressed with our new Surgeon General's dedication to the health of the poor, I still feel her weight sends the wrong message: look how far I got by ignoring medical advice. So she is a good, very good, person, but a rotten example of the preventive care that is our only hope for real savings in a plan that refuses to limit malpractice abuse. Please don't dismiss this as criticizing someone with a problem I don't have--in fact, bad food is too readily available and inexpensive to the poor in America. If this is addressed, as a priority far higher than the socialization of medicine, Obama will have done some good.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Better than God. Really?
God created both women and men in his image. The fact that God is relational, encompassing both the masculine and the feminine, is an unchanging fact that the Church keeps needing to rediscover. When a patriarchal culture reads Genesis 1:27, it notices the “male” and ignores “and female” or somehow discounts it. Every culture, even one as “advanced” and especially one as sophisticated as ours, has this tendency. Our worship of Progress is our projection of human qualities onto God. How could God, already perfect and eternally outside human history and time, get better?
Indulgences and church government.
The “reformation” to which the church is committed is literally that: re-forming, i.e. rediscovering the intent of the structures at the time the Church adopted them. A church hierarchy, developed to serve those inside and outside of the church, instead became a much coveted source of power and prestige, purchasable by the Borgias and their sort, and highly dependent on revenue from the marketplace of guilty souls. While there are doubtless church structures more suited to the Information Age than house churches and itinerant apostles, they are not in any way “better” or an “improvement” over Acts. “Change” is a fact, but Progress is often an illusion.
Science and astronomy.
Some Christians still persist in a belief in a Creation week comprising a sequence of 7 days of 24 hours duration—forgetting that there was no sun until the fourth day, and thus no way that a “24 hour day” had any meaning on days one, two and three. But this error, as obvious as it is trivial, shouldn’t obscure the grander fact the God is the Creator, whatever exact means he chose to use. I just read that Stephen Hawking is still refining the “Big Bang” theory, so who knows when we will find out exactly how God did it? (I can wait ‘til Heaven, but that’s just me.)
Women in the church and elsewhere.
I will grant that, in many obvious ways, the status of women has improved, particularly in cultures influenced by Judaism and Christianity. But this is not a continuous line: even many conservative scholars believe the early church had women leaders. During the era of persecution, the bishop was often the first to be martyred, so moving away from women as bishops saved women’s lives—until the exclusion became dogma, and the many women leaders in the Bible (Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe) and the early church were forgotten. It was NOT the selfstyled “liberal” and “progressive” mainline Protestants who first re-discovered this—it was the lower class, much despised Pentecostals and Salvationists. For example, the Church of the Foursquare Gospel was founded by a woman, and led by her for many years. But in the larger culture, are women really that safe? A female living inside another female has no protection at all. Sexual assault is widespread and devastating. There are few places where you can leave your doors
unlocked any more. Is that progress for women? Some of what we name “progress” has been based on devaluing the precious task of childrearing, and both men and women suffer for our arrogance in valuing tasks based on the market value of the service when performed outside the home. And we still haven’t figured out a way to allow fathers to breastfeed!!
Part of this thread:
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/02/science-salvation-slavery-and-equality-the-bible-and-historic-reforms/
Indulgences and church government.
The “reformation” to which the church is committed is literally that: re-forming, i.e. rediscovering the intent of the structures at the time the Church adopted them. A church hierarchy, developed to serve those inside and outside of the church, instead became a much coveted source of power and prestige, purchasable by the Borgias and their sort, and highly dependent on revenue from the marketplace of guilty souls. While there are doubtless church structures more suited to the Information Age than house churches and itinerant apostles, they are not in any way “better” or an “improvement” over Acts. “Change” is a fact, but Progress is often an illusion.
Science and astronomy.
Some Christians still persist in a belief in a Creation week comprising a sequence of 7 days of 24 hours duration—forgetting that there was no sun until the fourth day, and thus no way that a “24 hour day” had any meaning on days one, two and three. But this error, as obvious as it is trivial, shouldn’t obscure the grander fact the God is the Creator, whatever exact means he chose to use. I just read that Stephen Hawking is still refining the “Big Bang” theory, so who knows when we will find out exactly how God did it? (I can wait ‘til Heaven, but that’s just me.)
Women in the church and elsewhere.
I will grant that, in many obvious ways, the status of women has improved, particularly in cultures influenced by Judaism and Christianity. But this is not a continuous line: even many conservative scholars believe the early church had women leaders. During the era of persecution, the bishop was often the first to be martyred, so moving away from women as bishops saved women’s lives—until the exclusion became dogma, and the many women leaders in the Bible (Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe) and the early church were forgotten. It was NOT the selfstyled “liberal” and “progressive” mainline Protestants who first re-discovered this—it was the lower class, much despised Pentecostals and Salvationists. For example, the Church of the Foursquare Gospel was founded by a woman, and led by her for many years. But in the larger culture, are women really that safe? A female living inside another female has no protection at all. Sexual assault is widespread and devastating. There are few places where you can leave your doors
unlocked any more. Is that progress for women? Some of what we name “progress” has been based on devaluing the precious task of childrearing, and both men and women suffer for our arrogance in valuing tasks based on the market value of the service when performed outside the home. And we still haven’t figured out a way to allow fathers to breastfeed!!
Part of this thread:
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/02/science-salvation-slavery-and-equality-the-bible-and-historic-reforms/
Monday, August 24, 2009
Jim Wallis circa 1980 where have you gone?
I just read Rev. Wallis again,
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/20/the-moral-core-of-the-health-care-debate/?dsq=15318107#
and found no hint that he is open to anything but THIS plan, RIGHT NOW. He provides no religious or theological justification for the government doing this, aside from anecdotes that the faith community, as he defines it, is attending lots of meetings and "doing things"--except I heard nothing about prayer meetings, fasting and praying, confession for our personal part in this, just damning of unnamed, sinister special interests. But how is "reform" supporter Planned Parenthood not a special interest? For that matter, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might just be a special interest:
one that is deeply distrustful of people of faith like Joe Lieberman, and one that is in deep denial about the meaning of the shift in power of 2006-when LIBERAL Republicans lost election after election to CONSERVATIVE Democrats. For all the hope people, including myself, used to place in him as a "third way" it must be blisteringly obvious by now that Jim has moved to uncritical support of liberal Democrats. Why is the “government option” more important than Darfur?
I believe Jim and many of his supporters are pacifists--why are they quietly allowing the President to greatly expand a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan?? The country that hasn't been conquered by an outside power since Genghis Khan in 1219??? Jim is falling in step with the President's priorities on these things, and it's a sad spectacle.
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/20/the-moral-core-of-the-health-care-debate/?dsq=15318107#
and found no hint that he is open to anything but THIS plan, RIGHT NOW. He provides no religious or theological justification for the government doing this, aside from anecdotes that the faith community, as he defines it, is attending lots of meetings and "doing things"--except I heard nothing about prayer meetings, fasting and praying, confession for our personal part in this, just damning of unnamed, sinister special interests. But how is "reform" supporter Planned Parenthood not a special interest? For that matter, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might just be a special interest:
one that is deeply distrustful of people of faith like Joe Lieberman, and one that is in deep denial about the meaning of the shift in power of 2006-when LIBERAL Republicans lost election after election to CONSERVATIVE Democrats. For all the hope people, including myself, used to place in him as a "third way" it must be blisteringly obvious by now that Jim has moved to uncritical support of liberal Democrats. Why is the “government option” more important than Darfur?
I believe Jim and many of his supporters are pacifists--why are they quietly allowing the President to greatly expand a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan?? The country that hasn't been conquered by an outside power since Genghis Khan in 1219??? Jim is falling in step with the President's priorities on these things, and it's a sad spectacle.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Radical Middle
Isn't there a Beatles song about dreaming about....please enlighten me with a comment, anonymous or otherwise. Anyway, my dream is buried in this exchange from sojourners
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/2009/01/16/look-whos-praying-at-the-inauguration/?disqus_reply=5378002
A frequent problem is the oppressed becoming the oppressor. By framing gay issues as civil rights issues rather than religious disagreements, the trends you mention could well end up with me being despised as a bigot, much as many people now look down on a good 'ole boy with a Confederate flag on his pickup(i.e. assuming he's a racist). Legally, a sermon on the Ten Commandments could be viewed by a court sympathetic to GLBT issues as an incitement for a drunk to beat up a gay person in a bar nearby that evening. If such a crime actually occurred, the victim could sue and compel the pastor/church to spend a fortune on a legal defense. In California a fertility clinic was successfully sued for referring a lesbian couple to a different clinic for religious reasons. Also in California, people are being denied their right to vote in citizen petitions. So as fervently as I want you to be physically safe, I don't support much of what is now occurring. Your psychological well-being is important, but freedom and the democratic process are important to the nation as a whole.
A plea for Christians to work for the physical safety of GLBT folk overseas even as we oppose gay marriage here in the US for religious reasons. This is the sort of radical middle thing that should appeal to Sojourners Magazine; unfortunately they are more just the Christian left these days. Which is their right, of course, but a disappointment to folks like me who were big fans of Jim Wallis back in the 1980's
I would also like to affirm JamesM: "So many people dehumanize others and think that that is what they are called to do. Maybe if they had a real heart-to-heart with people who have experienced what you have, they would change their tune."///More on hate crimes:Perhaps you[a person I'm debating on sojo.net] support hate crimes legislation for honorable reasons. I oppose it from the reasons given by this Jewish letter writer, published in response to Cornel West: September 29, 2007
CORNEL WEST and Sylvia Rhue's arguments about hate crimes legislation border on hatred itself, such as when they accuse people who oppose this legislation as being guilty of "falsehoods and bigotry" ("Fabricated fears about hate crimes legislation," Op-ed, Sept. 25).
Hate crimes legislation is unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Hate is a motive. Making a motive a crime is legislating thought. Matthew Shepard was murdered. That was the crime. Perhaps hatred of homosexuals was the motive. Every crime has a motive. Greed can cause theft. Jealousy can cause people to kill the lovers of their mates. Anger can lead to assault and battery. Anger, jealousy, and greed are not crimes. Assault and battery, murder, and theft are crimes. Hate also should not be a crime. We need to keep our senses, even if we don't like the reason that someone commits a crime.
B. M. C.
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/2009/01/16/look-whos-praying-at-the-inauguration/?disqus_reply=5378002
A frequent problem is the oppressed becoming the oppressor. By framing gay issues as civil rights issues rather than religious disagreements, the trends you mention could well end up with me being despised as a bigot, much as many people now look down on a good 'ole boy with a Confederate flag on his pickup(i.e. assuming he's a racist). Legally, a sermon on the Ten Commandments could be viewed by a court sympathetic to GLBT issues as an incitement for a drunk to beat up a gay person in a bar nearby that evening. If such a crime actually occurred, the victim could sue and compel the pastor/church to spend a fortune on a legal defense. In California a fertility clinic was successfully sued for referring a lesbian couple to a different clinic for religious reasons. Also in California, people are being denied their right to vote in citizen petitions. So as fervently as I want you to be physically safe, I don't support much of what is now occurring. Your psychological well-being is important, but freedom and the democratic process are important to the nation as a whole.
A plea for Christians to work for the physical safety of GLBT folk overseas even as we oppose gay marriage here in the US for religious reasons. This is the sort of radical middle thing that should appeal to Sojourners Magazine; unfortunately they are more just the Christian left these days. Which is their right, of course, but a disappointment to folks like me who were big fans of Jim Wallis back in the 1980's
I would also like to affirm JamesM: "So many people dehumanize others and think that that is what they are called to do. Maybe if they had a real heart-to-heart with people who have experienced what you have, they would change their tune."///More on hate crimes:Perhaps you[a person I'm debating on sojo.net] support hate crimes legislation for honorable reasons. I oppose it from the reasons given by this Jewish letter writer, published in response to Cornel West: September 29, 2007
CORNEL WEST and Sylvia Rhue's arguments about hate crimes legislation border on hatred itself, such as when they accuse people who oppose this legislation as being guilty of "falsehoods and bigotry" ("Fabricated fears about hate crimes legislation," Op-ed, Sept. 25).
Hate crimes legislation is unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Hate is a motive. Making a motive a crime is legislating thought. Matthew Shepard was murdered. That was the crime. Perhaps hatred of homosexuals was the motive. Every crime has a motive. Greed can cause theft. Jealousy can cause people to kill the lovers of their mates. Anger can lead to assault and battery. Anger, jealousy, and greed are not crimes. Assault and battery, murder, and theft are crimes. Hate also should not be a crime. We need to keep our senses, even if we don't like the reason that someone commits a crime.
B. M. C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)