Often we’re the victim of unintended consequences, we think we’re doing one thing when something we thought was in our favor isn’t.
For example, if you approach scripture backwards there might be some unintended consequences. If you approach scripture by looking for support for your opinions you might find something that seemingly supports one position you hold, while contradicting other positions you hold, it doesn’t seem to be a helpful exercise.
Further, if you have to read something into the text that isn’t actually there, that also doesn’t seem particularly helpful.
Maybe it’s better to start with what the scriptural text says, and try to follow that where it leads, instead of starting with a point you’re trying to prove and pulling scriptures to “prove” that you’re right.
I know it may not be a popular view anymore, but maybe it’s best to align ourselves with scripture rather than the reverse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
And that is what led me to my positions that I hold today. So, maybe it is a cautionary Tale.
If that’s truly the case then one wonders why your positions are seemingly more aligned with secular liberal orthodoxy, than with Christian Orthodoxy.
That also doesn’t explain the inconsistencies and contradictions. But we expect those and understand that they’ll never be adequately explained.
First of all, it's just a fact. I was an extremely ultra-orthodox conservative as a young Man. That's just the reality of it all. I took the Bible literally. I believed in the penal substitutionary atonement Theory. I was very calvinistic in my belief system. Very traditional, very Southern Baptist conservative. That is the reality.
A second reality is that the way I got to where I am now is through reading the Bible. Alone. Well, that, and other conservative reading material. James Dobson, Jonathan Edwards, Etc. But mainly the Bible. And when I was reading the Bible and taking it seriously and even literally, as I was taught, I saw Jesus teachings about peacemaking about wealth and poverty. I saw that Jesus never talked about homosexuality or penal substitutionary atonement. I saw that Jesus never talked about taking the Bible literally Oh, indeed, that none of the Bible talk about taking the Bible literally.
I reached all these conclusions based on the Bible in the Bible alone. I did not read liberal Riders. I did not listen to Liberal preachers. That's just the reality of it all. And feather reality is it many people traveled the same path that I traveled. My wife. My pastor. Her husband. On and on, many of us Progressive Christians reached our conclusions from a conservative starting point.
Just to clarify those points. Do you recognize that reality? Do you have any reason to doubt the story of me and my wife and countless other Progressive Christians?
As to your question, one wonders why my positions are seemingly more aligned with secular liberal Orthodoxy than with Christian Orthodoxy..?
First of all, you're speaking about a particular slice of modern Christian Orthodoxy. In a lot of ways - not all but a lot - our belief system resembles much of the anabaptist tradition.
But certainly, I can concede the vast majority of mainstream Christian. For at least hundreds of years has tended to align with more modern conservative Evangelical Orthodoxy than our Progressive beliefs.
As to why so many people brought up as conservatives like me read the Bible and took it seriously and literally and ended up more Progressive, one rational answer is that there's much in the Bible that leads many people to these sort of conclusions.
As many people across the Spectrum agree, the Bible does talk a lot about wealth and poverty and watching out for the least of these. The Bible does talk about peacemaking and being a Peaceable people, turning the other cheek, loving the enemy, ideals that lead away from warring sorts of conclusions.
Indeed, someone like Gandhi can read Jesus' teachings and find very Progressive values there. And he's not alone. I think perhaps what you need to realize that, especially Jesus teachings but really all the Bible, removed from the context of conservative indoctrination, can and does lead people to Progressive conclusions. It just happens, all the time.
Do you recognize that reality? Or are you not familiar with it outside of isolated people like me?
So, let's point out something, then let's look at the text.
First, I note that you failed to include the first part of Luke 16. That's convenient since that parable encourages investing and multiplying wealth.
"13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight."
Lest dig a little deeper than a wooden, literal, superficial reading of this test.
The obvious is that these two verses don't indicate on any way that this is aimed at anyone but "The Pharisees, who loved money". I think that it can be expanded to anyone who "loved money", but to impute "love of money" to anyone who you define as "rich" is both unsupported and unprovable. Beyond thatm Jesus is clear that He is not limiting this to money when He says, " What people value highly...". It seems safe to opine that Jesus is suggesting that anything that is Loved more than God is a problem. (A Violation of the "greatest" commandment).
Less obvious, but still important are the words used to describe the Pharisee's relationship with money. ("serve", "devoted to", "despise", "hate", "love") These words aren't suggesting mere possession of money is the problem, not do they relate to the amount of money one possesses. Instead they speak to the relationship between people, money, and God.
You could make the argument that "the rich" by definition love money more than God, but that's quite the broad sweeping indictment of millions of people who use their financial resources generously to serve the poor.
"17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Is it safe to say that you agree that nothing is to "drop out of the law" and that divorce (in most cases) leads to adultery?
"22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment,..."
So, we see here a picture of what people usually refer to as "heaven" and "hell", it also refers to "angels".
Are you now suggesting that you believe in the existence of "heaven:, "hell" and "angels"?
It's also pretty clear that the rich man is in "torment", could it be that you're taking this literally as well?
" ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’"
This doesn't sound like someone trying to order someone else around, but like someone in "torment" looking for relief from "this fire". Are we talking this literally?
"‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
This is the second time we see an appeal to the Jewish Scripture as an authoritative source for accurate information. Literal or not?
Finally, this could be a veiled reference to Jesus coming resurrection. If it is, then what does it say about those who claim to be Christians, yet deny the bodily resurrection?
Of course, your shenanigans require that I address this here. In one of the forums where I know with a high degree of certainty that no comments will be deleted.
I'm going to point out some reality, and hope it doesn't offend you. The reality is that you can't prove your claim about being a "conservative", you simply can't. I'd also point pout that when pressed for support for your positions you rarely offer the Bible, but instead offer a laundry list of people you identify as "Anabaptist" and suggest that I read those people. So, forgive me if I take your claims with a grain of salt.
Yes, I have multiple reasons to doubt you. As to "your wife" and your battalions of "progressive christians", how about if you stop speaking for them and just speak for yourself.
As to your second comment, I have multiple friends (in real life) who are "progressive", yet none of them has a theology as unique as yours. The reality is that your theology very closely aligns with modern secular liberalism, and your comments on many matters are closer to atheists than to historic Christian Orthodoxy.
Certainly that Bible speaks to wealth, poverty, and things of that nature. Yet it never suggests direct government subsidizing of the poor. It certainly doesn't support your preferred "democratic socialist" political views. But that's neither here nor there. The question is not does the Bible speak of issues of money, but is Dan's interpretation of what the Bible says accurate. I've already pointed out instances where there are questions regarding your hunches, and I haven't seen you provide any sort of Biblical evidence to refute my concerns.
The reality is that you are trying to reinterpret the entirety of the scripture through this one lens and doing so in a heavy handed, woodenly literal manner.
I could care less how you choose to interpret things and how you live out your life based on those interpretations, but once you start announcing that your views represent "reality", it becomes a problem.
The reality is that you can't prove your claim about being a "conservative", you simply can't.
Of course I can reasonably prove it. Anyone can to anyone who is reasonable and not being a dick.
With a little effort, one could find my friends I grew up with - especially those I was closest to during my early spiritually formative years at the adult level. It is entirely possible to prove...
1. That I grew up attending Victory Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.
2. That I and my family attended two or three times on Sundays, on Wednesday nights and, in my teen years, on Saturday night youth gatherings, Thursday night visitations, Tuesday night nursing home (and other) visitations. Of course, the days and times changed over the years, but by interviewing those who knew me, they could attest that I was a regular attender of all these events and more - revivals, youth retreats, training events, Christian concerts and movies, etc.
3. One could interview people who grew up there and they will attest that VMBC swung from being a moderate conservative Southern Baptist church (which was VERY conservative) to being a very conservative SB church in the years I attended.
4. The fellas who were my best men at my wedding and with whom I was in a Christian band for ~ten years can attest to all the regular deep discussions we had about the Bible, abortion, the Bible, homosexuality, staying true to the Bible and to God, prayer, the Bible, the state of the world and the bible. These guys knew me best of all back then - with the exception of my wife, who grew up deeply conservative Southern Baptist, as well.
5. One could interview all these people and they could attest that I held to ALL the traditional conservative thinking - a literal Bible, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, taking the Bible seriously, loving God above all else, the utter depravity of humanity, faithfulness to one's spouse, avoiding sin, opposition (STRONG opposition) to abortion and homosexuality. On point after point, you could find out that I held all/most of the traditional view points of conservative Christianity. This could all be reasonably discovered by talking to people, by talking to my wife.
Now, I suppose you could GUESS that somehow, growing up in that conservative world, at 11 or 12, I secretly decided to become a liberal AND YET hide it from everyone - EVERYONE - for ~20 years, all the while loudly espousing adherence to conservative doctrine. But that simply begs believability.
Are you seriously suggesting that one could not find all that out if one wanted to?
Are you seriously suggesting that at some point, I secretly decided to become a liberal and kept it secret for 20 years??
Do you recognize how insane that sounds?
Yes, you could trot out people who purport to be who you say they are and you might be able to trot out some Sunday school attendance records, and blah blah blah.
But the reality is that in this medium, you simply can’t prove what you were thinking 50 years ago. It’s just the reality .
Now, I understand that it’s to your benefit to make the discussion about something that’s vague and amorphous and in the distant past. Because that just piles up more stuff between the substance of the discussion and you addressing that substance. You’ve don’t this before where you obfuscate for 5-10 comments then complain that it’s too far back in the thread to deal with.
So if you want to try to prove what was in your mind decades ago, go right ahead.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting anything about you, I don’t know. I’m saying that it’s a strange coincidence that your theology and your political philosophy align so precisely, and that it’s hard to believe that there isn’t any influence.
So, I’m not suggesting any of the strange crap you made up.
No. It's not the reality. I'm sorry you don't understand the nature of reality, but it easily provable to reasonable people that I am who I say I am. Not only that, but it doesn't easily provable that there are many, many people who came from conservative backgrounds who followed a path similar to what mine was in the real world. Now you can deny reality all you want. But it doesn't mean that your fantasy world is true or factual. Good luck.
Perhaps you didn’t read my previous comment. Or you did and chose to ignore it.
I’m tempted to ask that you prove what you were thinking 30 years ago, but you haven’t been to interested in proving your claims about more recent events, so I suspect it’d be a waste of time.
But, by all means, continue to focus on this silly sideshow if that makes you feel better.
Think about it, Craig. It's not that difficult.
You have a person (whole groups of people) like me who were literally, factually raised in very conservative churches. This is demonstrable, observable, provable.
You have a person, like me, who talked in great deal with his very close friends and extended church family, as well, about conservative ideals and did so publicly for over a decade. This is demonstrable, observable, provable.
I traveled in a Christian band talking about conservative, traditional ideas. We wrote songs (me included) about very conservative ideas and did so for a decade, throughout his twenties. This is demonstrable, observable, provable. The audio cassettes still exist.
You have a person who openly, regularly balked at liberal ideas... who gave zero indication that he believed in liberal ideals and by all outward appearances, was just what he said he was... a very orthodox conservative.
I mean, liberal for us back then was that we were okay with using electric guitar and drums. Wild stuff. We liked Amy Grant but were wary of the Rez Band, thinking maybe they were going too far... Oh, and I was raised by my conservative mentors to believe in taking care of the poor (albeit in a rather patronizing way). That was the extent of my liberal wildness.
Now, GIVEN all those years of overt, public, demonstrable conservative ideals, WHAT EXACTLY do you think might have been going on in my head? Do you suspect I was only PRETENDING to be conservative? Hiding it from my conservative wife? Do you suspect that she was also secretly lying about it? And all my friends who had similar paths?
How do you think that's rational? What is your proof?
My proof is that I AM THE ONE who we're talking about. I KNOW my theological orientation back then. My wife knows our conservative nature back then. My friends all know it. Including my conservative friends.
You see, when you have close human relationships, you can know these things. So, short of some evidence on YOUR part, rational people can see, given all the evidence, that there is zero reason to think that I was a secret liberal.
It's just an inane and vapid suggestion, lacking any founding in reality.
I AM curious and would love for you to tell me what you think... do you TRULY think I was not conservative? That I was a closeted liberal for over a decade? Why?
t’s a strange coincidence that your theology and your political philosophy align so precisely, and that it’s hard to believe that there isn’t any influence.
? Why? My political philosophy was influenced by my theology. What's difficult to understand about that? Is your political philosophy NOT informed by your theology?
You're making zero sense.
Craig... I think that it can be expanded to anyone who "loved money", but to impute "love of money" to anyone who you define as "rich" is both unsupported and unprovable. Beyond that Jesus is clear that He is not limiting this to money when He says, " What people value highly...".
People across the spectrum who recognize how central wealth and poverty issues were to Jesus' teachings do so because it is obvious in his teachings and the teachings found in the gospels (the Gospel preaching specifically to the poor, according to the text).
We're not imputing a love of money to anyone I define as rich (that would include me). Do you recognize that reality?
What we ARE doing is looking are all of the passages that touch on this topic, throughout the bible. Throughout the Gospels and Jesus' teachings.
Mary heard about Jesus' coming and what did she do? Thank God that the day was coming where the realm of God broke through, where the poor are lifted up and the wealthy are being brought down. Did she issue a caveat ("and by 'the rich,' I don't mean ALL rich... just a certain subset...") with her proclamation? No. Why is that?
When James repeatedly warns about the oppression of "the wealthy," did he issue a caveat? No. Why is that?
When Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor... did he issue a caveat? No. Why is that?
When Jesus said that it's hard for the wealthy to enter the realm of God, did he issue a caveat, clarifying he wasn't talking about the rich in general? No. Why is that?
Why did Jesus warn about wealth being a trap?
Is it reasonable to conclude that because, generally, wealth IS a trap? Across the board (not universally, but quite generally)?
It seems quite obvious, given the HUGE quantity of passages about wealth and poverty and the content of those passages. Also, just given the reality we can see in the real world, how wealth blinds and binds us. This is not unique thinking to liberal Christians, you know?
Oh, and I refer to "WE" who believe as I do because you need to recognize the reality that it's not like in ALL of the history of the world, I am uniquely recognizing Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty and its centrality to the Gospel.
You’re obsessed with the notion of proving something, you’re thoughts and attitudes, that’s by nature not provable.
Yes, I understand that you’ve expressed your opinion. That you’ve chosen to impose things on Jesus and His Gospel is clear. That your opinions equal reality, is a whole other discussion.
I'd be interested to know what genre you believe the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be.
I'd be interested in you beginning to answer the questions that I'm actually asking instead of continuing to dodge them as is your Norm.
To answer your question, I agree with the many who think that the Lazarus story reads like a parable or a story, not a history or report of Jesus seeing something that literally happened in heaven and in hell.
I do recognize that if it was a parable it is somewhat atypical. Still, it reads like a parable to me. That's my answer to your question.
Feel free to continue to ignore mine, it's what I expect. Or surprise me and answer them.
I certainly agree that appeals to those we can't know with certainty are any more believable than Dan doesn't help Dan's case. As I've said so many times over the years in dealing with Dan, claims of having been a conservative in the past do not equate to having understood conservatism then any better than his current failure in demonstrating a true understanding of it today...politically or theologically.
No Christian who is truly concerned with learning God's Truth and adhering to it and living by it would ever base an opinion on something like homosexuality (and all that concerns it) with the lame "Jesus never said", given what Scripture teaches about Who Jesus is. It simply doesn't wash.
Likewise, no such Christian would pretend that a serious study of Scripture is limited only to the English translation on which so-called "progressives" seem to rely upon to rationalize their decidedly unChristian beliefs and opinions. This comes into play with the notion of "the poor" and whether or not it always/ever/mostly/usually/sometimes/never refers to the materially poor. Indeed, it seems those like Dan are far more focused on wealth...being in enslaved to the focus...than actual wealthy people, and certainly more than truly "conservative", "traditional" Christians. Said another way, Dan is entrapped by concerns about wealth and poverty in ways most aren't.
Conservative? Progressive? Dan can call himself whatever he likes. Neither suggests he has anywhere near an accurate take on Scripture, nor than he ever did. The question now is, is he content with what he thinks he believes, or does he continue to strive for understanding? The former seems to be the case.
Dan,
When your “questions” consist of “do you understand” repeated over and over again, I generally think that it’s pointless to answer the same question multiple times.
I’ll point out that you’ve still spent the vast majority of your comments here arguing that you can prove something that’s not provable. Instead of dealing with the substance of the problems with your theology.
I guess something slipped through. I deleted it and the response to it.
Post a Comment