I think that there is a phenomenon in Christian circles that has spawned the type of thinking seen in the previous post.
Some friends of mine used to put it like this.
"People want Jesus to be their savior, but not their Lord"
I see this playing out differently of both sides of the spectrum
On the more conservative side this looks like someone who "commits their life to Christ", but still wants to hang onto that one (or more) thing that they/we just enjoy too much to turn over to God. Usually, this is manifested as certain areas of ones life that one keeps private (from people) which entail things or habits or behaviors that one (we) know are wrong but don't want to give up.
On the more liberal side it takes a couple of different forms.
The first is what we are seeing from a growing number of influential folks who label themselves as progressive christians. This one is the "If there even is a god, he is so loving and tolerant that he doesn't really care about stuff like sin, so as long as you're a good person it's OK."
The second is the folks who want a savior who is going to save people from whatever they perceive as the most pressing societal ill. Poverty, Pollution, Racism, Climate, whatever. They want a god who will come and save us from stuff and if he decides to use government mandates to do so, well that's OK too.
Ultimately, we see this playing out with (some) folks on the right focusing on personal piety as well as the public "sins", while failing to grasp (or ungrasp) what holiness is. While in the left, we see anything from a denial of sin entirely to an almost relativistic view of sin (Well that might be sin to you, but...).
So, what's the answer? I'd suggest that the place to start is to put God in His proper place, submit to His authority (even when we don't like it), and accept His gift of grace that gives us a clean slate. I'd suggest that if we'd get the hierarchy straightened out and live like people who have been given a marvelous gift, that you'd see less of the social ills and we'd start to see the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, as It is in Heaven.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I know I said I was going away, but just a few thoughts from someone who you would call a progressive Christian...
This one is the "If there even is a god, he is so loving and tolerant that he doesn't really care about stuff like sin, so as long as you're a good person it's OK."
They may exist out there, but I've never ever heard anyone say ANYTHING like this. Progressive Christians definitely believe in the problems of sin. We actively oppose the killing of people - especially innocent bystanders - in war time and do so, calling that "sin." We definitely believe that slavery or oppression or the denying of rights to people to be "sin" and call it out as that. We DEFINITELY do not dismiss "stuff like sin" by saying God doesn't really care about it. Do you actually know of someone who would say this? Quote to support it?
Poverty, Pollution, Racism, Climate, whatever. They want a god who will come and save us from stuff and if he decides to use government mandates to do so, well that's OK too.
We do believe that such things are wrong, even sinful, and we do pray that poverty, pollution, racism, etc, end. We also work to end such behavior. But is this any different than conservatives? Are conservative Christians not also opposed to poverty, pollution, racism? I'm not sure how this is limited to progressives. Clarification?
Or not, just some points respectfully raised and questions respectfully asked.
And just a pre-emptive clarification: I'm not asking if you can find a quote somewhere where someone says "God doesn't care about sin..." I'm asking for something verifiable, where if you ask that same person "You mean, you don't think God cares if someone rapes another person?" they would say "No, God doesn't care about any sin..."
I'm willing to bet that no such believer exists in the real world, liberal Christian or not.
DT
"They may exist out there, but I've never ever heard anyone say ANYTHING like this.'
Which has what value to this conversation at all?
1. If one defines sin as anything that goes against God's will/plan/law etc. then...
2. Anyone claims to be a Christian and denies the existence of God, denies the existence of sin.
3. If one goes to the Progressive Christian web site one fines a recent sermon sacrificing the concept of original sin on the alter of Darwinian evolution.
I do think you do an excellent job of demonstrating that second example though.
"calling that "sin.""
"to be "sin""
"We do believe that such things are wrong, even sinful,..."
So, while you (singular) believe those things to be "sin", that has no meaning beyond "you". You are suggesting, that "sin" is subjective. Further, your subjective list of "sin"s, just happens to coincide with your political views, coincidence?
"I'm not sure how this is limited to progressives. Clarification?"
I'm not suggesting that there are limits. I am suggesting that it is convenient that those on the progressive side are perfectly comfortable with a flexible subjective and amorphous concept of "sin", which allows for a great deal of flexibility in both how one lives as well as how one relates to others.
"I'm asking for something verifiable, where if you ask that same person "You mean, you don't think God cares if someone rapes another person?""
No, what I am saying is that there are a growing number of people who are growing in influence who are saying "Of course god doesn't care, god doesn't exist." So, if your point is that one can remove the concept of sin from being grounded in the very nature of a Holy God, then you may be correct. However, if one removes God from the equation, then the concept of sin becomes a social construct which simply changes as one side or the other gains a majority in any given social group.
As you can see, I'm shooting a little deeper than quote mining.
If Jesus is to be believed, then.
A) God exists
B) There is a Kingdom of God
C) God is King of His Kingdom
D) We (at least some people) are part of God's Kingdom
E) As subjects in the Kingdom of God, there are limits and implications to our choices.
F) In an Orthodox understanding those choices that take us outside of the parameters set by the King are called sin.
G) As much as we don't like it, we don't get to decide.
Now, if one takes the "god doesn't exist" progressive christian trail, than this in immaterial. It is simply a Darwinian survival of the fittest might makes right world and we have no hope for any sort of transcendent anything.
If one takes the God's all "love and grace", while ignoring things like His Righteousness, Justice, Truth, then we have a fairly impotent god who pretty much lets anyone do anything with minimal consequences or any reason to follow his suggestions.
I just don't understand how a God who establishes "rules" (more properly Laws and Commandments) is somehow incapable of being loving. How "rules" and "love and grace" are somehow exclusive. Why it is somehow wrong to try to align your thought and actions with the expectations of the Creator King.
It's interesting where things pop up. This is an excerpt from a paper who's author is making a point with which I don't fully agree (at least not in the way he seems to mean what he says). This paper is also being used as a sort of cudgel to bludgeon the members of a congregation into staying a part of a denomination which has moved to a theological place this congregation isn't comfortable. However, I think the author does a pretty good job describing our relationship to a Creator God, and where sin fits in the picture.
"What it means to be human is to be created as a masterpiece of God's wisdom and benevolence, but created nonetheless, with all of the limitations that come from being creatures and not God.
What it means to be human is to be created as a reflection of God's goodness, only to have marred that reflection through pride and disobedience, relegating ourselves to a perpetual condition in which we turn from the good in favor of inordinate self-interest. As Christians, we call that read on the human condition "original sin."
Sin aggravates the restrictions that naturally come from our finitude and limits the confidence we can have in our knowledge of what is good and right. Sin makes us myopic, distorting our pursuit of truth with the astigmatism of self-interest and limited perspective. Calvin certainly acknowledged the way that sin distorts our understanding of God, ourselves, and the ideal human life. He wrote that Scripture provides a set of "spectacles" that help correct our vision
on those fronts. But even for the Christian who enjoys the advantage of grace and the guidance of Scripture, the effects of sin remain, so that it is easy to overestimate the confidence with
which we understand God's intentions for us and the world."
Which has what value to this conversation at all?
You made a claim, I do not believe that the claim is supported by real world data. At all. When I made a claim that you found doubtful, you went on a tirade, assuming many bad intentions on my part. When you did it, I politely raised the question, "Really?" and let you know that I had never seen any data to support it.
I assume you are someone for whom facts and truth matters, and so, I raised the question. Truth, then, is the value it adds to the conversation.
Do you have data to support the claim or is it just an unfounded hunch on your part? That's all I was asking.
You are suggesting, that "sin" is subjective.
What I'm doing is not that exactly, but noting the reality that morals change from culture to culture. In biblical culture, polygamy, slavery and killing people for adultery and breaking the sabbath were all morally acceptable. I assume you agree with me that these are NOT universal moral values and that slavery IS wrong, regardless of what the culture thought back then.
So, I'm not exactly saying sin is subjective, but I am saying that what is considered immoral has changed from culture to culture. Do you disagree? I would further state that context does potentially make a difference. Do you disagree?
your subjective list of "sin"s, just happens to coincide with your political views, coincidence?
Not coincidence at all. As a follower of Jesus, I have had to shape my values to match what I think Jesus taught. Thus, while I was not always in support of marriage equity or always opposed to war for Christians, I am now. So yes, Jesus' teachings have shaped/changed my moral values. But it was not, factually speaking, the case that I was a liberal who valued pacifism or who supported gay rights who then "found" a way to make Jesus' teaching match those values, but the other way around.
Do you see the difference? Do you agree with me that, IF I think Jesus is teaching that we should not engage in war or invest money in savings and I value Jesus' teachings, that I should mold my values to match Jesus' teachings as I understand them? I think you do.
who are growing in influence who are saying "Of course god doesn't care, god doesn't exist."
That may be. I don't know any of them and they are not part of my "liberal" Christian community base. But even if such people exist, do you think that they would say, then, that "So, it's not immoral to rape people..." or do you think that they almost certainly would call rape a sin or an evil or an immoral act? I am confident that, to a person, they would. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
if one takes the "god doesn't exist" progressive christian trail, than this in immaterial. It is simply a Darwinian survival of the fittest might makes right world
Well, again, I no of no such people, personally, nor have I read any writings of anyone like this. The only Christian Dwarwinian/survival of the fittest types I know of are conservatives who might argue that helping the poor is not a good thing, survival of the fittest dictates thinning their herd is a moral good. I've never heard any progressive types make that sort of argument. Not saying they don't exist, I'm saying I've never heard of any or read any such writings.
Why it is somehow wrong to try to align your thought and actions with the expectations of the Creator King.
Nothing at all. I just disagree perhaps with what you suspect God ("king" is a metaphor, by the by) "expectations" are. I tend to believe that God wants us to love God, love God's creation, love God's humanity. And those actions which push in favor of love, of grace, of support, of community, of the common good, are God's ideal for we, who are created in God's image. The specifics of how that plays out may be different from case to case - generally speaking, breaking someone's car is a destructive vandalism that is not of God's love... but when the nuns do it to the Nazi's car to let the children escape their clutches... well, it's a good thing. Grace and love, not rules.
Do you get my point?
Dan
"You made a claim, I do not believe that the claim is supported by real world data."
1. No I did not, I stated an opinion. Further according to the standard you apply to yourself, since not all claims are fact claims I you have no reason to support them. Yet somehow, once again, you expect more from others than yourself.
"In biblical culture, polygamy, slavery and killing people for adultery and breaking the sabbath were all morally acceptable."
Please define "biblical culture". The rest of your statement is simply not true (and I know how much the Truth means to you). Those were the punishments set out for violating laws promulgated by God. You phrase it is if it was just some random folks killing people with impunity.
"I assume you agree with me that these are NOT universal moral values and that slavery IS wrong, regardless of what the culture thought back then."
How can I possibly agree with you. You have emphatically and consistently denied the existence of objective transcendent morality. Unless you can provide some objective evidence that "slavery" (of course this means all types of slavery everywhere and for all eternity) is wrong, you can continue this. But in the absence of any sort of objective transcendent moral code, you are out of luck. You can't make contradictory arguments.
"So, I'm not exactly saying sin is subjective, but I am saying that what is considered immoral has changed from culture to culture. Do you disagree?"
So, now you are equating sin to cultural mores? You're not saying sin is subjective, you're saying it doesn't exist in any objective sense and that cultural mores define morality for the specific culture. Got it.
"That may be. I don't know any of them and they are not part of my "liberal" Christian community base."
So if you close your eyes and cover your ears and stay inside your little christian ghetto down south, then you just don't have to acknowledge whats going on in the bigger Progressive Christian world and pretend as if it doesn't matter.
"But even if such people exist, do you think that they would say, then, that "So, it's not immoral to rape people..." or do you think that they almost certainly would call rape a sin or an evil or an immoral act?"
I answered this.
"Well, again, I no of no such people, personally, nor have I read any writings of anyone like this."
OK, if you don't know of anyone like this then they just might not even exist. Do you realize how insular and vapid that sounds. Even if you did read them, you virtually certainly wouldn't find anything problematic. But, as long as you don't look, you can pretend things don't exist.
"The only Christian Dwarwinian/survival of the fittest types I know of are conservatives who might argue that helping the poor is not a good thing,..."
Find me ONE, just ONE sourced and in context quote of any conservative saying anything remotely close to this, or apologize.
"("king" is a metaphor, by the by)"
I'm quite sure you can prove that claim by the by.
"Grace and love, not rules."
Of course grace, love and rules are mutually exclusive, right. Or you could provide specific objective support for your claim.
Of course grace, love and rules are mutually exclusive, right. Or you could provide specific objective support for your claim.
It would appear to me, in my opinion, that sometimes they are. IF the rule is "adulterers should be stoned to death..." from God's lips to our ears! - Jesus said, "neither do I condemn you" and opted for grace NOT the rule.
So, with that example in hand, and with others - the Sound of Music nun-car-breaking instance, for example, others I could provide - I believe many people could agree that ruthlessly enforcing rules sometimes misses the point and grace is needed.
The Sabbath, after all, is made for humanity, not the other way around.
If you disagree... if you think the Pharisees SHOULD have killed the women and heeded the God-given rule, if you think the nuns should NOT have damaged the car and heeded the rule, if you think humanity IS for the Sabbath, well, you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
"In biblical culture, polygamy, slavery and killing people for adultery and breaking the sabbath were all morally acceptable."
Please define "biblical culture". The rest of your statement is simply not true (and I know how much the Truth means to you). Those were the punishments set out for violating laws promulgated by God.
For the Israelites, they had a rule that they believed God gave them that said it was okay - COMMANDED! - to kill adulterers. In biblical cultures - Israel and the surrounding nations - simply had ZERO laws or rules against polygamy. God gave David his many wives, according to the Bible, taken literally. Slavery was at times commanded by God to Israel, including forced marriages of captive virgin girls. The statement is a factual claim of what the Bible literally says.
Do you need me to provide the biblical texts... again?
Or can we agree that these things were morally accepted in the Bible?
Dan
Post a Comment