Thursday, October 13, 2005

A Progressive Christian's Motto? "Judge Not Lest We Judge You for Judging"

It occurred to me, while researching Christian alliances, that the Church is an alliance, for what is an alliance to begin with if not a joining together of people of like mind, in this case, of all Christians to form one Church, which is the Body of Christ? So, what are we really talking about when we say Conservative Christians or Progressive Christians? What are we talking about when we say Baptist, Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, Assemblies of God, etc? We are talking about different sects, if you will, of the Christian faith, Christian denominations which have drawn lines in doctrine to separate themselves from one another. Does this lessen, however, the affinity these denominations should feel with one another based on their foundational belief that Christ was born as man to a virgin Mother, that Christ died on the cross for all of mankind's sin, that Christ rose from the dead after three days in order to offer us forgiveness of sin and everlasting life, to save us from that from which we cannot save ourselves?

I am not a theologian. I am a simple Christian. I am a Christian who reads my Bible, prays and attends church regularly because I believe God's Word admonishes me to do so. I am a Christian who serves inside the walls of the building, called the Church, which merely serves to provide a gathering place to protect its members from the outside elements, and I am a Christian who serves outside the Church by giving of my time and resources to community projects, working in the lives of children who would, otherwise, not be exposed to the gospel and training those children according to a Biblical world view rather than a secular one.

My assumption that modern day Christian political alliances were formed from pure motives has been brought into question. My belief is that they were formed in order to give voice to the Christians of our Nation who felt that politics was becoming more secular and our Nation more and more removed from the values and moral principles upon which it was founded. The question has been brought about because I believe the motivations of Christian alliances such as The Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition were pure motivations, that they were meant to further the moral values and principles of the Christian community, at large, rather than to merely promote a political agenda. Well, they were born out of a need to promote a moral political agenda. That is a fact. I still believe, in my heart of hearts, that the majority of Christians hold the belief that abortion on demand is wrong, that homosexual marriage should not be legalized, that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution and that the separation of Church and State was not written to protect the State from the Church but rather so that the State would not interfere in people's rights to practice their religion. I still believe, in my heart of hearts, that the Bible does not call governments to care for the sick, poor and needy, but, rather, individual Christians.

The Progressive Christian Movement was not born out of a desire to promote the values and moral principles of Christianity, rather it was born out of a perceived need on the part of politically liberal Christians, who confuse the condemnation of sin with the judgement of people involved in sin, to separate themselves from the majority of their fellow Christians and condemn them for condemning sin. They separate themselves from Conservative Christians in their effort to draw a line in the sand and pronounce that it is okay for Christians to accept and promote political policies which favor abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and its proponent's political and social agendas. Progressive Christians would have us believe that anyone who does not accept the sins of the killing of unborn babies as an acceptable form of birth control and the legalization of gay marriage, along with the view that government sponsored aid to the poor should be the primary source of the poor's sustenance is unloving, unkind, unforgiving and uncharitable. Progressive Christians entirely miss the point, it is not the people who are involved in sin in this world which those who participate(d) in the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition movements condemn(ed) and judge(d), it is the acceptance of political policies which would implement those sins as normal and commendable, acceptable and desirable which those who support(ed) those coalitions condemn and judge.

In the Progressive Christian movement's attempt to promote and maintain, as legal, the choice of a woman to have an abortion (a cleaned up description of the killing of viable babies for the sake of not inconveniencing oneself, in the majority of cases) and legalizing and normalizing a well documented unhealthy and risky alternative lifestyle (a cleaned up description of sexual perversion) they are doing the very thing for which they condemn Conservatives wrongly, the judgement of their fellow men. In this case they judge Conservative Christians as unloving, unkind and unforgiving, they also judge them as not caring about "the least of these" because Conservatives take seriously the call of Jesus to help the poor among us, personally, individually, and claim that we are uncharitable concerning the poor because Conservative Christians believe that we should work to have enough to share with the poor, individually, rather than calling on our government to suck up more and more of our tax dollars to redistribute for us and absolve us of that personal responsibility.

Clearly our political agendas differ, I do not judge them for their political agenda what I judge is sin, what I am called to do is to love God, love my neighbor as myself, share the gospel message, glorify God, think on whatever is lovely and pure, be concerned with my own sin and to hate all sin. What I am not called to do is to be politically correct, to promote the normalization and acceptance of sin and immoral behavior as an extension of my "love" for the sinner. We're all sinners, I'm a sinner. I work on my sin condition daily, I try to be humble, I work to be loving, giving and charitable in my everyday life. I don't spend my days looking for reasons to hate people whose sins are no worse than my own, but I do not promote sin's normalization in my life. I seek the removal of sin from my life, not its acceptance. I don't spend my days working to promote political policies which feel that killing babies as a form of birth control, normalizing a perverted lifestyle and absolving myself of personal responsibility for the poor and needy around my by calling for the government to take that responsibility off my shoulders as proper. These beliefs make me largely unpopular in the Progressive Christian community. That's a tough break, ain't it?

Perhaps it is a good thing, after all, that Progressive Christians are drawing a line in the sand.

47 comments:

wildwest said...

Your statements are clearer than before, Jacke. You and I may differ on many points, but you make a clearer case for your position.

As for "conservative" and "progressive" Christians and the differences between them, I don't think it matters which group came first and which created the division, which group is a majority, or whether taking a position makes one popular among members of the other. The important thing is to be faithful, not to be popular or to be a majority. "What would Jesus do?"

I don't know if you found any of the founding statements of the alliance organizations mentioned, but I found some more information. On p. 201 of "With God On Our Side," the original aims and goals of Moral Majority were to "defeat social-welfare bills... fight pornography, homosexuality... [and] the advocacy of immorality in school textbooks." On the home page of FaithfulAmerica.org, the following issues are mentioned: genocide, AIDS, poverty, peace. Different agendas among groups of Christians doing what they believe God wants them to do.

It is not for me or any other progressive Christian to judge whether you or any other person is being faithful or not. Though you and I may differ on many things, I agree with you that judging someone for judging is judging just the same.

Jacke M. said...

I basically found the same thing regarding the alliance organizations mentioned that you did.

What I was partly making an effort to do, wildwest, was to make a distinction in the motivations for starting such alliances between the respective partisans. I believe the original, now perceived as conservative, alliance's motivation was to have a Christian voice in political policies. While Progressives may intend to promote political agendas as well, their primary motivation is to distinguish themselves from conservative Christians, thus intentionally dividing Christians was their primary objective, politics is secondary, in my opinion. That leads me to the conclusion that the motivation of those on the right were more justifiable than the motivation of those on the left.

It is still my contention that those on the right did not necessarily intend to disenfranchise other Christians. I don't believe those original coalitions considered that there would be Christians who actually feel that abortion and homosexuality should be legal and normalized in society. I could be wrong, I've had that happen before. ;)

I note that many Progressive Christians harbour a dislike for the phrase "What would Jesus Do?" They seem to suggest that it is a question lightly asked but not genuinely considered. More judgement from the left? I do appreciate that you do not cast your lot with them.

And, yes, I agree that we must be faithful to what we feel God is calling us to do. After all, our relationship with Him is a personal one, not collective, however, that said, I think an argument can be successfully made that Christians are their "brother's keepers." There is much discussion in the Bible that we are to rebuke those who fall away from the Bible's early teachings on the desired moral behavior of the Church. Sin is not "relative" as some would have us believe.

So, would you care to take on the question of how you justify those positions with your Christianity? I never received a satisfactory answer from any commenter at IAACT. Not a surprise but nevertheless, a disappointment. :(

wildwest said...

"I don't believe those original coalitions considered that there would be Christians who actually feel that abortion and homosexuality should be legal and normalized in society."

Three things: First, those coalitions knew there were Christians who held different views (thinking of Jimmy Carter, who was a disappointment to them), although they that they were being more faithful. They may also have written them off as not being Christian at all according to their definition.

Second: What is meant by "normalized"? For many years certain very conservative Christians refused to go to the movies. (Some still do.) They didn't try to prevent other people from going, but they admonished their church members to stay away. If charity is best left to churches and individuals, perhaps it should be left to churches to tell people that homosexuality is a sin, and consider that that is not the government's business, either. Churches, after all, can do it better.

Three: No one ever wins an argument on abortion. I am not willing to try now.

"I note that many Progressive Christians harbour a dislike for the phrase "What would Jesus Do?" They seem to suggest that it is a question lightly asked but not genuinely considered. More judgement from the left? I do appreciate that you do not cast your lot with them."

If any "Progressive" Christian doesn't like the saying "What would Jesus do?" that's too bad. In fact, I believe it came from Progressive Christians in the Social Gospel movement a hundred years ago. Not sure what you mean by saying "you do not cast your lot with them." I just wouldn't agree with the idea that it isn't a good question.

"I never received a satisfactory answer from any commenter at IAACT. Not a surprise but nevertheless, a disappointment. :("

I cannot guarantee that my answers will be "satisfactory" to you, either. Some of us see issues like "social-welfare bills," pornography, homosexuality and "immorality in school textbooks" as far less urgent (if important at all depending on one's interpretation) than issues like genocide, AIDS, poverty, and peace. Others believe that "the poor you will always have with you" and "there will be wars and rumors of wars," therefore don't be too concerned. Don't be too surprised if you are not "satisfied" with explanations from those who differ. I am ususally not. But then it isn't required, in my opinion, in order to love God and my neighbor.

wildwest said...

Correction: They believed that they were being more faithful.

Jacke M. said...

wildwest,

1). I believe J. Carter is still in the minority as far as the moral agenda of Christians. I believe that the majority of Christians support a political agenda as laid out by "conservative" Christians.

It is possible that conservative Christians write off progressive Christians as not "really" Christians. We are told in the Bible that we shall know them by their fruit. Some conservatives feel that the "fruit" of Progressive Christians who support abortion and the agenda of homosexuals is bitter. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can understand why they might draw that conclusion.

2). It is my belief that by giving homosexuals the special right to same sex marriage that society lends credence to a lifestyle which has throughout history been considered a perversion. Our children are already being taught tolerance regarding this issue. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting we should be intolerant of gay PEOPLE, I am suggesting that it should not be the new rule of thumb that it be legitimized by calling it an "alternative lifestyle," no better or worse than a loving heterosexual relationship. There is all sorts of scientific evidence to prove that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and that those who live in it are at a higher risk for health problems in the form of STDs, including HIV Aids. To suggest it is just as acceptable as heterosexual relations and to legalize marriage between same sex couples encourages our Nation's children to feel it is a perfectly normal and healthy alternative to heterosexual relationships when clearly it is not. That is what I mean by "normalization." Going to the movies may affect your mental health, because you may subject yourself to words and deeds which God might just as soon you did not expose yourself to, but going to the movies will not kill you. Aids will. We owe it to the children of this Nation not to teach them it is a normal and comparable lifestyle to heterosexual relations, we do not teach them that bigomy and pedophilia, adultery and fornication are normal healthy lifestyles, why should we be teaching them that homosexuality is? You say it should not be the governments business to teach it as sin, perhaps not, but neither is it the governments business to endorse it as a normal alternative lifestyle, neither should groups like GLSSN be allowed into our schools to tell the Nation's children that they should experiment with their sexuality and try homosexuality in order to make a decision about their sexual orientation. You are aware that these things are going on? The government does not have to point out that it is considered to be a sin in the Christian community but they have a responsibility to express the increased health risks associated with homosexuality.

3). The deaths of millions of babies in our Country through abortion and the welfare of our children which is put at stake by the selling of the homosexual lifestyle to them are very urgent issues, wildwest. Perhaps you have never considered it from that perspective?

wildwest said...

I have no way of knowing if the majority of Christians are "conservative" or of the Jimmy Carter and Jim Wallis variety. You may have evidence to that effect that I don't have or you may be basing your belief on a hunch. I don't have a problem with your believing "conservatives" are a majority. It would just take more to convince me that either "conservatives" or "progressives" are a majority.

I find it interesting that your argument on the gay issue is framed purely in terms of public health and AIDS prevention. I think that's laudable. As I mentioned, AIDS is a major concern among progressives. I have absolutely no problem with churches admonishing against homosexual activity if they sincerely believe it is sinful, but the government needs to play a different role. Public health is certainly in the government's interest. Unfortunately I have read very little on the issue from a public health standpoint, so I am afraid any hunches I may have on the subject would not be very helpful.

Unfortunately people on opposite sides of issues talk past each other. I believe if they listened to each other enough the might find enough common ground to come to a truce on some issues.

Jacke M. said...

wildwest writes:

"Public health is certainly in the government's interest. Unfortunately I have read very little on the issue from a public health standpoint, so I am afraid any hunches I may have on the subject would not be very helpful."

Here's a good place for you to start, if you are interested:
http://www.narth.com/index.html

I agree that we often talk past each other. It takes a little time to actually get beyond bias and reservations toward others, which are put into place by broad generalizations of different groups. People, including myself, are prone to label one another and write each other off as not worth the trouble because we all think we know what a certain person believes based upon the labeling that people are either accepting or applying to themselves. This is why I feel that the division of the Body of Christ into sub groups of "Conservative" or "Progressive" is not helpful.

An interesting side note, my husband brought home some paperwork from the Christian Coalition last night. I will not be joining. Each person has to make their own individual choice about who they will align themselves with. I made the decision a few years back that when eligible I will not join AARP for the same sort of reason that I do not align myself with the Christian Coalition, that would be disingenuous of me, don't you think? I do not need large groups to lobby and speak for me. I consider that very presumptious, especially in light of the fact that in the few years I have been involved in debate on the internet, even my very closest allies (Twoop, for instance) do not see exactly eye to eye with me on every single issue. How can we expect a large generic group to speak to issues of import on our behalf?

Momma Twoop said...

even my very closest allies (Twoop, for instance) do not see exactly eye to eye with me on every single issue.

Ain't it the truth? :)

In my opinion, we don't see eye to eye on those things we've discovered and discussed thus far, because your heart is more pure, or should I say, less jaded, than mine. You have the patience of Job and almost always seek to answer your detractors or give your opinion in any matter only after prayer and reflection. One day, when I grow up, I hope to be just like you!!

Yer ally, who doesn't always see eye to eye, but loves you immensely.......

Jacke M. said...

"Yer ally, who doesn't always see eye to eye, but loves you immensely......."

Tha feelin's muchooul, mah fren! :)

wildwest said...

Well, that opens the doors to many, many more conversations.

We all have our own reasons for the organizations we choose to associate with and not associate with. I respect your choices.

Jacke M. said...

...and I respect your willingness to be open-minded in dealing with me, as surely I would fall into the "Conservative" category of political beliefs on social issues.

Consider the recent questions regarding religious beliefs of those who have been nominated to the USSC. Is it possible for a Supreme Court Justice to be a Christian and also be a strict constructionist?

I believe it is.

wildwest said...

That depends on your definitions of Christian, of strict constructionist, and whether, like John F. Kennedy, you do not allow your religious views to infringe upon the rights of others.

Jacke M. said...

:::sigh:::

Do you have a dictionary?

There are several good on-line editions.

;)

wildwest said...

*Your* definitions. :-)

Now that could be a very, very, very in-depth conversation and not relevant to the original post.

Anyhow, I'm going on vacation and might not be back for over a week. Might step in, but if not, take care in the meantime.

Jacke M. said...

Well, Ah hope ya have a gud vacashun! Btw, whut iz *yer* defynishun uv vacashun?

Have a safe trip and enjoy! I know you'll be missed.

Jacke

Jacke M. said...

P.S.

It's my blog, and Twoop's, so if we want to go off topic we got the right. ;)

Momma Twoop said...

Jacke, if wildwest is going on vacation to a nice, sunny, tropical place with white sand and azure seas, you think he'd have room in his suitcase for you and I? Imagine how much better we could understand each other if we were to discuss such weighty issues in depth, whilst sipping some tropical concoction out of cocunut shells and cute lil umbrellas on a tropical beach!! What'dya say, wild? :)

Have a good and safe trip!

Anonymous said...

Progressive Christians would have us believe that anyone who does not accept the sins of the killing of unborn babies as an acceptable form of birth control and the legalization of gay marriage, along with the view that government sponsored aid to the poor should be the primary source of the poor's sustenance is unloving, unkind, unforgiving and uncharitable.

No. You're just wrong. You'll grow up someday.

Jacke M. said...

I base my comments on spending time in debate with Progressive Christians. This is what the majority of them seem to agree on, Anonymous. Upon what do you base your snap decision that I am just wrong and that's the end of that?

Momma Twoop said...

It would be good to know, wouldn't it, Jacke? Are we just supposed to believe you're wrong because Anonymous said so? That's purdy goofy!

Jacke M. said...

Anonymous is, well... "anonymous" to start with and gives no reason for his/her belief. I'd be interested to hear the reason behind it since, actually, even the vaunted Wallis leans toward that belief, at least the part about the poor, anyway. Go figger.

Anonymous said...

if conservatives cry about giving to the poor via their taxes and studies have shown they haven't been giving that good at the offering plate either, then why should we believe they even want to help the poor?

is forcing the poor to beg at church doors better? what about churches that won't help anyone that deny services based on denomination, whether the person is a christian or not, whether or not the person attends the church, etc?

with the government we know that they have no ulterior motives for whom they give assistance to. They have standards of who qualifies and how much they qualify for. people on food stamps can eat what they want. they don't have to rely on a church to give them a bag of crackers, chips, and canned meat and then figure out how they are going to feed their family for a couple of days let alone a month. people on a medical card don't have to see if a church will pay their medical bill or whether that church even supports their use of birth control pills or them tying their tubes.

conservatives want to control the poor. they don't want to help them. they want to make them beggars at their doors.

tinkerbellrock@earthling.net said...

Better yet, where in the bible does it say that we aren't to give to the poor via taxes? It doesn't. According to that very same bible we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and if Caesar wants to give a portion of that to the poor then we aren't to complain.

Jacke M. said...

tinkerbellrock@earthling.net said...
"Better yet, where in the bible does it say that we aren't to give to the poor via taxes? It doesn't. According to that very same bible we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and if Caesar wants to give a portion of that to the poor then we aren't to complain."

...and the coin retrieved had whose picture on it? We can understand that Caesar represents the government in this scripture can't we? We can understand that we are also supposed to abide by the rule of authorities and that the authorities that we have are there by the grace of God, can't we? And in America we know that those authorities in our government are placed there by the consensus of the people as representatives for us in our respective States, or counties or Cities, don't we? As such, at least in America, we certainly DO have a say in how that money is spent because we have a representative governmental system.

Under your argument, Tink, we could also claim that there is nothing on which the government spends money which should be open to complaint. right? So all those leftist-liberals who are screaming about the money being spent on the war against terrorism rather than on our own people should just shut up and send in their tax dollars without complaint? Is that an argument you really want to pursue?

An even more interesting topic would be who does the copper, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, emerald, OIL, belong to? Who made it? Whose name is sealed on YOUR forehead? Who do YOU belong to? Does anything really belong to you, or me, or the federal government?

I haven't settled on a particular interpretation of what Jesus meant by the Caesar comment. I can see that it could be interpreted in more than one way and that those ways could be contrary. I think Jesus, in His wisdom, asked a question which many would choose not to respond to in this case, just as He did with the adulterous woman brought to Him when He told them he who is without sin should cast the first stone, there was no response, was there? They knew in their hearts they were all sinners, they could not throw stones but neither did they want to have a debate with Jesus, they chose to walk away, even though their own law dictated to them that they had a right to cast those stones. Interesting, huh?

In response to "anonymous"

We do know that Jesus has told us that we can't serve both God and money. Money is not a partisan issue, on it's face, there are wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans, wealthy Libertarians and wealthy independents. We all have to make that choice independently and I am not of the opinion that when people make the wrong decision that the government should then step in and make that decision for them because they are too stupid to do the right thing. That is elitist thinking at it's best, follow that road and it'll get much worse.

Read Isaiah 55: 1-3.

Momma Twoop said...

Anonymous, I don't know, nor have I ever heard, of anyone complaining of helping those who are truly in need and looking for a hand up. However, many of those on the receiving end aren't looking for a hand up as much as they are an easy way out. Abuse of the system is rampant. Further, the system itself has engendered a sense of entitlement among our countrymen, a sense which has no place in our national fabric.

Conservatives don't cry about giving money to the poor. They are angry at having such an easily abused system and at the progressives' penchant to block any kind of reform. Progressive mantra, pushed throughout our country's higher education system and elsewhere, of "If it feels good, do it," have only made the situation worse.

You lambast conservatives for allegedly making the poor beg for help, stating that it should be left in the government's hands so that no one has to figure out, on their own, how to earn or acquire their next meal. You pretend we want the poor "begging at church doors." Ironically, you propose they be made to beg at government's door. Why is that any better, in your opinion?

You've heard the saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." That, to me, explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressives simply want to give people fish, teaching only a few, if any at all, how to fish for themselves.

You say government has no ulterior motive in deciding who gets what. They surely do in the context of today's reality, which is, "Give me mine! I deserve it!" Doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, the sense of entitlement is there. You make the people dependent on you, you, in essence, enslave them. Providing hand-outs with as few strings as possible is something progressives are wont to do, not conservatives.

Jacke M. said...

Twoop writes:

"You say government has no ulterior motive in deciding who gets what. They surely do in the context of today's reality, which is, "Give me mine! I deserve it!" Doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, the sense of entitlement is there. You make the people dependent on you, you, in essence, enslave them. Providing hand-outs with as few strings as possible is something progressives are wont to do, not conservatives."

I'm glad you pointed that out, Twoop. I agree. :) Another reason there are strings attached is that the Democratic Party wants to keep the poor nursing at that government tit with promises during campaign seasons, ie as leverage to win votes. There certainly are strings attached. There is no such thing as a free lunch, is there?

Momma Twoop said...

You got that right, Jacke. Everything people get "free" from the government, whether it be in the form of welfare, state pork projects, such as a new art center or bridge, or SSI, it must first be taken from someone else. Nothing is "free" and people forget that. The sense of entitlement is too strong, and new groups entitled to "free" stuff or special treatment from the government are always popping up.

Speaking of that sense of entitlement, a perfect instance of such a thing is visible in Anonymous' post. He (she?) says:

they don't have to rely on a church to give them a bag of crackers, chips, and canned meat and then figure out how they are going to feed their family for a couple of days let alone a month.

Instead of being thankful that the poor are given anything from a church, or anyone else, he seems to display anger that they weren't given enough. I don't understand that mentality and I never will. It is repulsive to me.

Jacke M. said...

Twoop, remember the "anonymous" who said:

No. You're wrong. You'll grow up someday?

Well, that anonymous needs to read the new anonymous' comment. It is quite evident that some Progressive Christians do, indeed, claim the motto "Judge Not Lest We Judge You for Judging." Could it be any clearer that conservatives are judged from these lines:

"if conservatives ... why should we believe they even want to help the poor?"

and

"conservatives want to control the poor. they don't want to help them. they want to make them beggars at their doors."

The fact of the matter is that Progressive Christians do judge Conservative Christians, failing to see that we do care about the poor we just disagree on the best way to serve them. This is a highly politicized stance, in my opinion it is based little on Christianity and much on partisan politics. It doesn't have to get personal or judgemental, but many, rather than following their own convictions decide that if others don't follow THEIR particular game plan that they just don't care at all.

For me, caring about the poor is a more personal experience and less of a appeal to some governmental agency to do it for me. I suppose it takes all kinds, and perhaps there is no harm in anonymous lobbying the government for aid for the poor, but likewise there is no harm in me doing it by a different route either. To coin a phrase, perhaps these anonymous' will "grow up someday?"

Socialism, on the other hand, should concern us and as you so articulately stated earlier America was not intended to be a socialist Nation. I will follow MY conviction and fight to see that it never becomes one, seemingly much to the chagrin of progressively socialist Christians.

tinkerbellrock@earthling.net said said...

War is against the teachings of Jesus. Helping the poor follows the teachings of Jesus. That is a no brainer.

Oh yeah, but that is right. Conservatives want bombs and war. They don't care how much of their taxes pays for that, but give to the poor and they are screaming and crying. Studies have proven that the vast majority getting a "hand up" are working poor. They have jobs. They work everyday and still fall below the poverty line. Love your neighbors, people. That includes wanting you neighbor to have food on their table and a roof over their heads. Jesus didn't say love your neighbor as long as they are doing things the way you say they should.

You two really need to read your bibles. Focus on the teachings of Jesus and shut the TV off when Hagee and his ilk preach from the pulpit of world politics instead of the bible.

Momma Twoop said...

War is against the teachings of Jesus.....That is a no brainer.

It is, apparently, a "no brainer" to progressives because believing what you just typed requires no thinking whatsoever.

Jesus knew there would be wars throughout man's existence, as we are a world full of sin, hatred and evil. (Romans 3:10-18) He said it was inevitable until His return. (Mark 13:7-8) Further, He dealt with governments, or magistrates, differently than He did individuals. The sermon on the Mount, which progressives reference most in an attempt to prove Jesus was a pacifist, was an instruction in personal conduct, not governmental conduct. He was, in essence, clearing up some things which were being mistaught by religious leaders to their listeners, stating "You have heard it said...." He followed it up with a warning to the religious leaders of that time with, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." He was addressing PERSONAL behavior, individual Christians in their conduct towards other individuals when disputes, or worse, arose. On the other hand, we learn from the Bible that magistrates are ministers who serve as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4) Jesus wasn't duplicitous nor were His teachings contradictory to God's words. We, personally, in our individual behavior are taught not to seek vengeance, which would create constant chaos, but we are to rely on magistrates, whom God placed in authority over us, to impose justice on wrongdoers in all matters.

Governments are God-appointed authorities, given the free will to wage war against evil as the apostle Paul said "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Romans 13:1-5) He clearly laid out the responsibility of government, which does not bear a sword for nothing, and of individuals' resposibility to respect their authority, above.

First Peter 2:13-14 agrees and suggests that governments are to punish those who do evil, i.e. criminals, murderers and terrorists. "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

Conservatives want bombs and war. They don't care how much of their taxes pays for that, but give to the poor and they are screaming and crying.

That is just a lie, and I suspect you're smart enough to know it. No one WANTS war. Only an idiot would believe such drivel, in my opinion. You strike me as no idiot.

Anonymous said...

jesus knew there would be wars because man is by nature sinful. jesus said to love our enemies and i am sorry but you can't love your enemy while putting a bullet in their head and bombing their cities.

Jacke M. said...

Anonymous said...
jesus knew there would be wars because man is by nature sinful. jesus said to love our enemies and i am sorry but you can't love your enemy while putting a bullet in their head and bombing their cities.

12:44 PM

Anonymous, is this the Jesus who is the son of Jehovah God? Is this the Jesus who was with the Father in the beginning? Is this the same Jesus who is a part of the Trinity? Is this the Jesus, who, in the form of a man called on the Father and submitted to Him? Instructed us on how to pray to Him? Is this the Jesus who will one day return to the earth and every knee will bow to Him? Is this the Jesus who will separate the sheep from the goats? Is that the Jesus of whom you speak?

Progressives try their best to make Jesus into a one dimensional character. He is not.

Momma Twoop said...

Jesus gave that instruction to everyone, knowing that it isn't always possible to escape war. I would suspect it is hard to love someone evil, like a terrorist, when you're killing one, but, we are human. Further, the government ordering that the fight be taken to the enemy has authority over us.

We are always to pray for peace, but once war is raging, we are to submit to the authority of our government, praying for the safety of ALL those involved. I don't understand why progressives have such a hard time understanding this. Is it because they just don't want to?

Momma Twoop said...

Exactly, Jacke. We, as Christians, are called to love our enemies individually. At the same time, we are told that government is charged with executing wrath on him who practices evil. Jesus did not promote the message of peace at all costs to the exclusion of EVERYTHING ELSE in scripture, as Anonymous pretends.

"Progressives" seem to be saying that Jesus told individuals to love the enemy at all costs, never fight back, no matter what, but was wrong ("Ooops!") when He instructed magistrates - comprised wholly of individuals - to execute wrath against evildoers, the very same government to which we are told to submit. Are those individuals in our military committing sin by fighting against, or executing wrath, against that which is viewed as evil and at the direction of our government? NO! They're doing exactly what has been dictated to them!

In order to be a "progressive," it seems you must pick and choose those portions of what Jesus said to believe, ignoring that portion which doesn't support what you WANT the Bible to say.

I include the word "progressive" in quotes because it is my opinion that suggesting Jesus was wrong, or that His presence negated the entire Old Testament, is far from progressive. It is backwards, elitist, ignorant and selfish.

Jacke M. said...

You know, Twoop, we have one anonymous telling us that because the government is our authority that we shouldn't complain about how the government spends our tax dollars and then we have another anonymous telling us that we must complain when the government takes us to war to defend our Nation against terrorism.

I don't pretend to know everything about scripture and everything about Jesus. I have many questions myself, but Jesus and God the Father are one with the Holy Spirit. They are all in agreement, I do believe Jesus made it clear while He walked the earth that He submitted Himself to God the Father. God the Father most definitely approved righteous war and even encouraged war perpetrated by His chosen people.

Yes, we are under a new covenant of grace, I also understand that, but Jesus is also clear in scripture that there will come a time when He will judge mankind, that isn't a very tolerant position, now, is it? WE are not to do it, until that time. Jesus, when he was a man/God was not always just about love, or rather he believed in rebuking IN love. He had many strong words to say against people he viewed as hypocrites. He was capable of anger and acting in anger. He felt and had all the emotions that men have. He was more concerned about man's spiritual health than his physical health, however, he ate, he knew that man had physical needs. I don't know, to me, a war which a government undertakes to protect it's people from terrorists and those who support and fund terrorism is a justifiable war.

I see it so much of the time with Progressives that they want to pretend that Jesus is only one dimensional. He isn't. And I can't say anything beyond the Words of Jesus, but I can say that Jesus did not present a contrary view to God the Father, rather He complimented God the Father.

I don't believe there is a person in America who is pro-war and loves to be about that business, but, much as we all hate it, there are certainly times when it is justifiable.

For one who is a follower of Jesus, this anonymous seems awfully quick to pass judgement on his/her brothers and sisters in Christ. That's a shame, isn't it?
And originally, that was the topic of this blog to which anonymous is commenting. He/she seems to prove the point, fortunately it is not unforgivable, as ALL men have a tendency to do so, some have more of a tendency than others and the Bible certainly instructs us that we should not judge others, I suppose that is something that we all must continuously work on within ourselves.

Momma Twoop said...

I couldn't agree more, Jacke. The message is clearly contradictory. Again, I have no problem with our government using my tax dollars to help out those who are truly in need. I don't view homosexual workshops, such as "Successful Fisting for the Gay Man," as "helping the needy." Yes, I submit to the government in that I haven't withheld tax fees levied against my income, but I do question what the government does with those monies in some instances. Further, it has been proven repeatedly through studies that a homosexual lifestyle carries with it certain risks above those associated with a heterosexual lifestyle. Based on that alone, it is mind-boggling that anyone would want to promote it as healthy and natural.

I certainly have to work on not passing judgment on others as being backwards, elitist, ignorant and selfish. I shouldn't have said such things and I apologize to Anonymous.

Having said that, I still don't understand picking and choosing select portions of that which Jesus said, taking them out of context, while ignoring the rest of what was said if it doesn't support a belief.

Anonymous said...

i totally love how you totally run all around a statement and don't even bother to address it. the truth was spoken. jesus spoke the truth. live it or don't. we all answer to god in the end and i am sure that he will judge us on how well we followed the example he gave us in jesus and live the truth jesus spoke.

Jacke M. said...

Speaking of running around a subject, who are you addressing and what specific statement is being run around? If you have a question, ask it, a comment, make it.

You won't even give your name and yet you are telling someone else that they are running around a subject? What is it to which you'd like a reply? I don't know whether you are the first, second, third, fourth or eighth anonymous, or whether you are are all or none of them. What is clear, however, is that you seem unwilling to extend the smallest amount of respect to those to whom you write.

Momma Twoop said...

i totally love how you totally run all around a statement and don't even bother to address it. the truth was spoken. jesus spoke the truth. live it or don't. we all answer to god in the end and i am sure that he will judge us on how well we followed the example he gave us in jesus and live the truth jesus spoke.

Care to explain, Anonymous? The only one running around statements made is you.

Yes, Jesus spoke the truth - in all He said. So, why do progressives ignore that which doesn't support their beliefs? Why do they pretend the OT and God's words are, in essence, made null and void, when Jesus specifically stated otherwise?

Anonymous said...

If governments are God-appointed authorities than does that mean that Saddam and Hitler were doing what God wanted them to do? Of course not. So why would you believe Bush is?

Jacke M. said...

I'm beginning to understand why bloggers don't spend a lot of time replying to their commenters. I suppose that is something you learn as you go.

Anonymous, I know that it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to you to compare Bush to Hitler or Saddam Hussein but believe me, in reality it is a huge stretch. Of course if one was to spend much of their time frequenting the D.U. and other leftist blog sites which care little about the truth such a stretch would become easier to swallow, I'm sure.

When, dear anonymous, was the last time Bush cut out the tongue of a U.S. citizen? Ran a U.S. citizen feet first through a chipper shredder? Cut off fingers of one of his countrymen? Do you think before you let your fingers do the walking?

I really have little more to say until you decide to join the real world, anonymous. Why don't you join a debate group? You are entirely off topic and getting more off the wall with each comment you add. DU has a forum, doesn't it? Good night.

Momma Twoop said...

If governments are God-appointed authorities than does that mean that Saddam and Hitler were doing what God wanted them to do? Of course not. So why would you believe Bush is?

They weren't doing what God wanted them to do, obviously. They are no longer in power, are they? Oddly, their reign came to an end specifically because countries, governments and individuals did that which you say is forbidden, for some reason. Their "magistrates" ended because governments took it upon themselves, as is their authority, to "execute wrath against him who practices evil." Did their authority come from God? Yes, it most certainly did because "it is written."

Funny, you know what the Bible says, yet you choose to ignore it. Why? Do you truly believe you are smarter than God, or is it that you believe He was just wrong when He spoke? You either believe the Bible, the Holy Word, or you do not. Which is it?

Anonymous said...

yet bush has supported the terrorization and torture of muslims. that isn't very christian is it?

the fact of the matter is that men are inherently sinful and they cannot be trusted to do what God would have them do. that is why in the end times the governments will claim that religion is the root of all evil and that it divides us. they will claim there should only be one religion that combines all the religions of the world. one day the anti-christ shall come to power and proclaim that he should be worshipped by all.

will you abide by your belief that the government is ordained by god then? will you support it? or do you think that america will be somehow exempt and will be some shining light in the darkness?

satan rules the earth. that is why god says we are not to be of this world. jesus will come and then he will reign. until that day comes, you risk much trusting any government, including america's. politics are of this world. you do just as you claim others are doing.

Jacke M. said...

Bush has not supported the terrorization and torture of Muslims. Where do you get this? Bush is currently staying the course to insure that Muslims in Iraq have a fair chance at Democracy, thus the vote on their new Constitution? What you describe is what Iraqis lived with under the rule of Saddam Hussein, not under their new constitution.

You are right that man is inherently sinful, that is the reason God sent us a Savior, the only way man can be righteous is by accepting that Savior and relying on God's Holy Spirit to work through him. Now, we aren't always successful because we are inherently sinful and many men choose not to accept Him and therefore, live out from under His umbrella of protection and guidance. All men are capable of great evil and great good. Bush is no Hitler, Bush is trying to protect a Nation, the Nation he was elected to protect and secure.

Again, no one likes war and no one in America is pro-war, however, it could be argued that Islamo-fascists are pro-war, they feel it is Allah's will that every infidel be killed, that all Jews be killed, all Americans, all Hindus, Christians, in short anyone who isn't an Islamo-Fascist is an infidel in their eyes, even fellow Muslims who do not follow their brand of Islam are considered worthy of death. All Muslims are not Islamo-Fascists but recent statistics, I believe in England, showed that a majority are at least sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists.

All actions are not equal, the actions of Bush are not equal to the actions of Osama bin Laden or Hitler. Do you really believe they are the same? Do you believe that there are no causes for good on this earth? Do you believe that everything done in the name of security and defense is just as evil as outright killing and mayhem for the sake of killing and mahem? Do you think that the planes which flew into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/01 were justifiable? Or that by America removing a brutal dictator who precided over torture, mass killings of his own people, plundering of the Oil for Food Program at the expense of the suffering of his own people, sponsoring world wide terrorist acts against innocent civilians is comparable to the U.S. removing such a villan from rule? Do you really believe that? If you believe that is true you and I will undoubtedly never agree on anything.

As far as Satan ruling the earth, yes, for a time, but he does not have any more power over God's people than God allows. Read the Book of Job. Satan was allowed by God to take certain actions in the life of Job, however, Satan did nothing to Job or anyone in Job's family without seeking God's permission. Satan only has the power over God's people that God allows, I believe for our spiritual growth. So, did God do these things to Job? No, Satan did. God allowed it. Did God cause terrorists to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon, no, but God certainly allowed it to happen, nothing happens that God is not aware of.

God allowed Saddam Hussein to rule over his people for a time, then God allowed George Bush to lead his country to war against him and he was removed from that power. He was removed from that power for a reason. We cannot know all of God's reasons for what He allows and doesn't allow because we are mere men. That is why the Christian religion requires trust and faith. Do you trust God, that whatever happens on this earth, that you can have hope for the future? I do. Praise God for His Great Sovereignty and Awesome Power!

Anonymous said...

does god claim one sin is worse than another? is murder worse than lying or is lying better than adultery? no. to god they are all the same. so the sins of bush are the same as osama's. as saddams. as hitlers. as yours. as mine.

you must not be watching the news much. bush appointed a man that believes that torture is the right course. soldiers are on trial for sadistic sex acts and torture committed against muslims in us detainee camps.

you look at the world through the eyes of mankind. god looks at the world with holy eyes. in the eyes of a holy god bush will be judged just like saddam will be judged. soldiers will be judged for the murders they commit in Bush's name. christians will be judged by how much they did or did not do as jesus taught us to do.

the best course is to follow jesus and leave the world to it's politics, it's governments, it's petty wars, and the demons that run rampant on it.

Jacke M. said...

Anonymous, there are actually some things, you last posted, on which we agree, and then there are, what I believe, are misrepresentations or misinterpretations.

I absolutely agree with you that there is no differentiation of sin in God's eyes.

Your misrepresentation is in this statement:

"bush appointed a man that believes that torture is the right course"

I must assume that you are speaking of Alberto Gonzales, since you failed to make that plain. Alberto Gonzales was an advisor to the President and he does not believe that torture is the right course in interogating terrorists. He merely looked at the situation from a legal standpoint as was his job to do. No one from high up in the Bush administration authorized those who are being tried to take the actions they took and while those actions were certainly abusive they were not torturous, imo.

Now, your description of a soldier following orders in war time as a "murderer" is beyond the pale. You must be a complete pacifist, which is certainly your right, but I cannot and do not agree with you if you are. There is a time when war is justifiable, I believe, in my heart of hearts that the war in Iraq was such a war.

If you go back to OT times in the Bible you will find instances when God encouraged war and actually aided His people in war. Would he encourage it and aid in it and then call those who did His will "murderers?" I don't think so.

Momma Twoop said...

yet bush has supported the terrorization and torture of muslims. that isn't very christian is it?

He has not supported "terrorization and torture" of Muslims, Anonymous. Those who went beyond what the law allowed are being punished, something our enemy does not do. What is it about "progressives" that make them sympathize so much with our enemies? I don't understand it.

will you abide by your belief that the government is ordained by god then? will you support it? or do you think that america will be somehow exempt and will be some shining light in the darkness?

Will I still believe that the government in the end times is such because of the authority given it by God? I sure will. No, I won't support it by worshipping a false god, as we are told not to be fooled. However, I will not resist their authority. If the governing authority says I must die because I will not worship or pray to a false god, I will submit to that authority for we are told "whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God."

For your information, I have never suggested anyone blindly trust any government, but pointed out that we are to follow the law, that it is there with authority from God, and that the prescribed behavior of individuals is different than that prescribed for governments, which are charged with using violence to execute wrath upon him who practices evil.

What am I claiming others are doing?