A person's spirituality and the degree to which they embrace that spirituality would naturally have a great impact on their politics...of course...otherwise the spirituality is nothing but a joke.
For example, Catholic social doctrine is based upon four basic principles: the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. Properly understood, that impacts a huge multitude of political platform planks:
- the death penalty
- the existence of and structure of social assistance for the poor
- foreign policy (not only war, but where and how to administer aid to relieve poverty overseas)
- and so on
If a person says that his personal belief system has no bearing on his political positions, he's either a fool or a liar.
In regard to a spiritually-minded Christian mandating either a liberal or conservative position as a whole, I'd think that the person either doesn't fully understand Christian spirituality or liberal/conservative politics.
Don't let him goad ya Mark, which is all he is trying to do. Oh wait, I forgot, he considers himself our savior - he is here to save us from those who would lead us astray from God.
Nevermind that he worships the teachings of a man who raped women and oppressed even more . . . :blink:
Don't let him goad ya Mark, which is all he is trying to do. Oh wait, I forgot, he considers himself our savior - he is here to save us from those who would lead us astray from God.
Nevermind that he worships the teachings of a man who raped women and oppressed even more . . . :blink:
Oh, Abigail, I don't take Allan seriously.
Besides that, compared to Jack Chick & company, he's weak.
This thread is, (more or less) in response to a thread started by Groucho in the politics and 'tacks section. Some believe a spiritually minded Christian is as likely (if not more likely) to be liberally minded politically.
I contend that this is simply not so. In fact, I hold the belief that a spiritually minded Christian would be more conservative in their political beliefs.
As proof, I offered the stark contrast between the liberally minded political idea of a government welfare program and the spiritually minded directive to the Church from the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, which states; "that if any man not work, neither should he eat."
I dunno Greek.
I think Paul was probably refering to those who busibodied all day, playing church, and then expected to sit at the collective dinner table eating the food suplied by those that worked outside of the chuch. I think Paul was refering to something that was specifically going on witihin the church in Thessalonica. I don't think Paul was speaking to society as a whole but rather a specific situation in the church at Thessalonica.
My question is can we or should we remove this "don't work / dont eat" rule from it historical/ecclesiastical context and force it upon society as a whole?
For example, a man is a lazy drunk and won't work. However he has a family - a wife and 3 kids. The wife is basicaly undeducated and barely makes minimum wage. In regardes to social welfare for this family, how could the don't work/ don't eat rule be fairly applied?
Doesn't God allow the sun to shine on both the evil and the righteoous? My point is that He does not dim the sun to prevent the unjust from getting sunshine, becasue if He did that, then the just woudnt get any sunshine either.
"Blessed are the poor...blessed are those who hunger now...blessed are those who weep now..."
Oh, I forgot. According to old Way dispensational leanings, a number of you don't actually believe the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels pertain to us at all, not being addressed to us.
It's quite difficult to follow a savior whose words don't even apply to you, isn't it....
With great trepidation of living up to my 'bully boy' persona...there needs to be some form of context and 'to whom it is written' with scripture dontcha think Danny boy ?? Otherwise what Paul and others had to say about working with ones own hands etc.. would have been in total contrast to the words of Jesus.
Don't forget Jesus also talked about slothfulness and bad stewardship etc..
That's the point... exactly! To me, it seems those that are liberally minded politically see the words of Jesus 'feed the poor, heal the sick' etc. as directives to form government programs to do said acts and NOT the church.
In fact, one poster in the other forum used the above words to say that Jesus would be considered a liberal today.
The words Paul wrote to the Thessalonians are directed to the Church. Period.
My question is can we or should we remove this "don't work / dont eat" rule from it historical/ecclesiastical context and force it upon society as a whole?
According to the opinions stated by the liberally minded, that's exactly what the 'religious right' is doing when, in fact, it is the liberals who have removed Church doctrine and applied it to society as a whole. (feed the poor, heal the sick)
As far as your hypothetical goes... I only have one word to say. Family... in the truest sense of the word, not a politically defined term of convenience and appeasement.
My question is this; if it's ok for the one to be removed form the historical/ecclesiastical context, why isn't, (or shouldn't) it be ok for the other?
Doesn't God allow the sun to shine on both the evil and the righteoous? My point is that He does not dim the sun to prevent the unjust from getting sunshine, becasue if He did that, then the just woudnt get any sunshine either.
Absolutely. At the same time, He doesn't say set up a government scheme to allow the sun to shine. Yes, the rain falls on the just and unjust and yes, everyone who is justified by the blood of Christ was just as unjust as the unjust.
The questions remain; would a spiritually-minded Christian be more likely to be a liberal politically speaking, or conservative?
And
What Scriptural evidence is there to support one way or the other?
With great trepidation of living up to my 'bully boy' persona...there needs to be some form of context and 'to whom it is written' with scripture dontcha think Danny boy ?? Otherwise what Paul and others had to say about working with ones own hands etc.. would have been in total contrast to the words of Jesus.
Don't forget Jesus also talked about slothfulness and bad stewardship etc..
1.) Is there anything at the beginning of each of the canonical gospels to indicate "to whom written" or "to whom addressed"? Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus; Mark begins with "The Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God..."; "Luke" begins with a narrative addressed to 'Theopholus" along with the author/editor's attempt to put forth a more perfect treatise to offset the situation that there were many gospels in circulation at the time he wrote; and John begins with the logos prologue, derived in great part from the "Wisdom" genre at the time.
But outside of this, no superscription on each of the canonical versions that spells out "to whom addressed"...
2. It is suggested by many scholars that the actual time of writing of the Gospels (or the versions thereof) took place the latter part of the first century; in other words, they were actually written after the Pauline epistles.
3. If there was a specific audience or readership intended by the Gospel writers, then lacking explicit superscriptions, the next recourse we have would be to examine the characteristics within the narrative of each of the Gospels to glean and reconstruct each of the Gospel writers' intent. These four gospels did not start as a unit of four as it might be erroneously supposed ( recall that there were apparently many gospels in circulation at the time 'Luke" penned his version) - they apparently enjoyed a life amidst their unique Christian communities prior to becoming gathered into the canonical collection with which we are now familiar.
4. It is well known that "Matthew" exhibits traits throughout - being commonly supposed as having originally penned in a Semitic language (the fragments of Papias are oft cited here in its mention of a gospel written in the Hebrew language), in addition to its 5-fold narrative structure - suggestive that such would have had especial appeal to a Jewish audience, or, Jewish-Christians. Others have reasonably proposed an Ebionite audience.
5.While on the other hand, "Luke' carries a different emphasis concerning its intended readership, which is highly suggestive of a primarily "Gentile" audience. It should be noted that of all the Gospels, only Luke contains Jesus' commissioning of "the seventy" (which, we all know, was a number signifying the nations).
Add to this the healing of the Roman centurian's slave, and the apparent more literal emphasis of Jesus' sermon contained in Luke 6 in comparison to the more figurative emphasis of Matthew.
6,) If I had to amend the system of dispensationalism, I would not draw a sharp line of demarcation between the entire body of Gospels and the Pauline epistles, as Bullinger and Wierwille had insensitively done - such an erroneous methodology ignores the actual literary and historical content and contexts of these writings - for the Jewish Christians of their communities apparently had their version(s) of the Gospel(s) (akin to Matthew), while the Gentile-Christians had in circulation among them their own version(s) primarily intended for them (akin to our canonical "Luke"). In fact, it is interesting to note that Paul's reproduction of Jesus' communion in 1 Cor. 11 follows more the wording of the Lukan account than any other.
7.) I would highly suggest that if you really want to grasp the import of what Jesus' "political" leanings might have been, get caught up to speed on actual biblical research done this past century, and a fine area for expanding your investigations would be in the area of studies done on Jesus' parables, beginning with C.H. Dodd's "Parables of the Kingdom" and J. Jeremias' "Parables of Jesus" to the more recent groundbreaking "Parables as Subversive Speech" by Herzog. Jesus' parables had explosive implications in the era and the social setting they were first aired, and there's little doubt that the content of His parables alone would have resulted in Him being crucified by the state perhaps more than anything else He had uttered at the time.
8.) in discussing the era and environment of Jesus in Palestine, we are most certainly NOT dealing with a modern American (nor Aussie) economic, political and social system. A good many of Jesus' parables underscored the oppression and exploitation of the ruling classes of His society. But we oft fail to grasp this 20 centuries later within the comforts of our own world.
1Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
4And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
5And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.
17The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.
18The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Clearly to the spiritually minded this is not about working a secular job and eating your meat and veggies.
The working and eating is there for all to see. No one who will not put the effort into a thing will be able to eat of it. Thank God. Yes then rain falls on the just and the unjust. The just know what it is while the other does not although it is raining all over the place.
You bring up a very valid point and one that is not widely understood by many of those Christian "liberals."
They consider the issues of the common good and solidarity without considering the importance of the dignity of the human person and subsidiarity. This is why so many good-hearted people end up endorsing such socialistic policies. They have the appearance of "doing something."
These programs do not necessarily work, though, because of the lack of consideration of the principle of subsidiarity (something done should be done at the most local community level possible: first, by the individual himself, then by immediate family, then by extended family, then by the community, and only if the action cannot be effectively accomplished at the more immediate level, it should be accomplished at the broader level). Just because something isn't being done at the more immeidate level is no justification for having that responsibility usurped by the broader level. In usurping this reposnibility from the immediate level (family, community) where it should be accomplished, the broader level (state/national/trans-national) ends up introducing corruption, inefficiency, injustice (forced redistribution), and ends up impacting the dignity of the human person of all who are involved in the process: the recipient, the social worker, and the funder of that ill-placed largesse.
As you said: immediately assuming something that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.
Again, I don't believe that the Christian liberal is wrong-hearted. I just believe he has been incompletely formed...needs some more education to take that big heart of his and apply it in a truly constructive, Christian fashion.
The Christian liberal's heart, though, is far different than those who espouse an immature, incomplete, and ego-centric social theology that was taught by TWI and by a few other so-called Bible-Based conservative groups: the theology of "to hell with the unbeliever." Their theology attempts to misuse a subset of scripture to justify not applying charity to others. The perverseness of this is that they have the appearance of accepting God's mercy for their lives (they believe they are totally unaccountable in their actions, even to God, as they are "born again" and are guaranteed heaven regardless of their actions or beliefs on earth subsequent to a single regenerative event). They quote scripture in an effort to completely disregard any responsibility for the poor. They are a truly miserable lot.
This is a tremendous topic for consideration and I'm glad you opened it for discussion here.
btw Mark I've seen where the Catholic Church has helped more people then I've ever seen before in regards to physical needs. Even in the category of those who cannot take care of themselves from birth.
I have worked at a number of Catholic places that help all sorts of people. The work of it is commendable to say the least.
These programs do not necessarily work, though, because of the lack of consideration of the principle of subsidiarity (something done should be done at the most local community level possible: first, by the individual himself, then by immediate family, then by extended family, then by the community, and only if the action cannot be effectively accomplished at the more immediate level, it should be accomplished at the broader level). Just because something isn't being done at the more immeidate level is no justification for having that responsibility usurped by the broader level. In usurping this reposnibility from the immediate level (family, community) where it should be accomplished, the broader level (state/national/trans-national) ends up introducing corruption, inefficiency, injustice (forced redistribution), and ends up impacting the dignity of the human person of all who are involved in the process: the recipient, the social worker, and the funder of that ill-placed largesse.
Very well said.
That's why I stated at the end of the first post that said programs or government directives may at first glance seem to be the right thing to do, but in reality are an immeasurable evil.
When I said this, I was speaking from a family value perspective. I wonder if there are statistics that document the demise of the family in correlation with government social programs? I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
The Christian liberal's heart, though, is far different than those who espouse an immature, incomplete, and ego-centric social theology that was taught by TWI and by a few other so-called Bible-Based conservative groups: the theology of "to hell with the unbeliever."
well...i just hafta say that it seems to me as if Jesus's views of politics were (and are) worlds beyond (but including) our notions of "liberal" and "conservative" values of today
i think such attempts to tag political bumper stickers on the stories and wisdom of Jesus is a shame and a travesty, and only serves to increase our hatred and ignorance towards each other...and double-standards abound
besides...2000 years have gone by...and the world has dramatically changed too many times since then.
what was ahead of its time 2000 years ago is not what is ahead of its time today
i mean...if someone brings a post-post-modern message to the pre-modern world, how can we compare it directly to what that same person would do in a post-modern world?
any attempt at a direct connection seems either dishonest or uninformed, or a stab-at-the-dark
it's as if we have mostly lost our sense of our actual place in time in this era of hyper-change
and our collective sanity is being quite swept away by it
i would say that most all religious systems of today that are based on ancient texts, are too far removed from their roots to claim a direct connection to the teachings or practices, either politically or religiously.
this seems a dominant trait of our post-modern funk...and quite natural, considering human nature, and the endlessly growing mountains of history we must contend with
yet it seems today's religious forms are already too supported by and into their system and puffed with pride to admit such an increasing radical disconnect
...
and i find it amazing how easily and how much and how many ways we celebrate our sense of pride in the name of the Bible...and strangely, to the point of being proud of pride
i mean...who could take the shame of a true radical humility, now that all these centuries and centuries of claims have been made (and killed for)?
if many evangelical politicans/ministers could bring themselves to honestly look into fields like cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology, and apply them to the biblical records and integrate what he found with his beliefs...they would have to live a lie...or reshape their beliefs
...which of course...might feel too much like dying inside
...like shattering the heart like a clay pot
but if we are honestly following in the steps of Jesus...this is something we would do daily, hourly, moment-by-moment...with joy and gladness
if nothing else...in order to avoid the trauma of only doing it once-in-a-lifetime
or at the end of life
...
and too...from what i understand, our present day clash of ideologies is not about the usual and over-simplified "left versus right," anway, but more like a clash between at least 4 highly partial value systems...and none of them are inclusive enough to be called "spiritual" in any classic sense of the world, though a few of them are relatively new to human history (each of which is both an improvement, and a new set of problems)
...a clash of many competing instinctual goods (like the ole' lion versus a calf versus a man versus an eagle, for example)
yet still...there are simply no political systems today that represent the individual radical philosophies of that infamous kid from Galilee
his included aspects of so many things...the original "catch me if you can," perhaps
he was so free from the institutions, that he could serve them all, to some degree
and so its no wonder we always fail (and fight) when we try to pin down the values of the "prince of peace"
and when there is a system that can live up to that caliber of universal care...it might be safe to say that He will have returned to the world
i think we will know it when there is real and actual worldwide peace and joy (don't hold yer breath, right?)
...
but that aside...i do think the world is in dire need of a more effective level of international dialogue about the relationships between politics and religion (and business)
but i am not sure if enough influential people are capable or willing...let alone believe such a thing is valuable or possible
sadly, these days....such a dialogue may even cause more war, not less
(and so we mostly only talk about religion over here, politics over there, and business over there)
and especially sad if those who hold the keys of power do not even believe that there are values or morals higher than (and complimentary to) their own...they will simply never bother to reach for what they will not consider...how can they?
but having said that...things are simply more complex than they ever were
and psychological and cultural and social and technological diversity continues to explode and frighten the heck out of most of us
Points 1-5 I'm not so sure they play such an important role in the topic at hand.
Point 6. I agree. I don't see dispensations in the way TWI taught. In fact I see such teaching as simply worng, if not destructive.
#7 This discussion isn't about Jesus Christs political leanings. It's meant to be about whether a spiritually minded Christian would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative political lens, and if there is Scriptural evidence to support said views.
#8 I agree. We are not dealing with America or Australia or any other country per se. We are dealing with individuals and their personal beliefs. That said, The Scriptures don't change. What was right and just when Christ spoke to those then, is right and just now.
Sir guess,
Wow,
i would say that most all religious systems of today that are based on ancient texts, are too far removed from their roots to claim a direct connection to the teachings or practices, either politically or religiously.
I would disagree. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He hasn't changed, nor will He. The only way to be "too far removed from their roots" is to be too far removed from THE root.
i think such attempts to tag political bumper stickers on the stories and wisdom of Jesus is a shame and a travesty, and only serves to increase our hatred and ignorance towards each other...and double-standards abound
I agree. No one is trying to tag anyone. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong.
This is an honest attempt at a dialogue about a subject that could use a hefty dose of honesty and humility in it's approach.
and too...from what i understand, our present day clash of ideologies is not about the usual and over-simplified "left versus right," anway, but more like a clash between at least 4 highly partial value systems...and none of them are inclusive enough to be called "spiritual" in any classic sense of the world, though a few of them are relatively new to human history (each of which is both an improvement, and a new set of problems)
Care to elaborate on the 4 partial systems?
yet still...there are simply no political systems today that represent the individual radical philosophies of that infamous kid from Galilee
No offence, but Jesus can hardly be called an "infamous kid from Galilee." If that's all you think of Him, then you should exclude yourself from further discussion of this topic.
As proof, I offered the stark contrast between the liberally minded political idea of a government welfare program and the spiritually minded directive to the Church from the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, which states; "that if any man not work, neither should he eat."
To take a phrase like that or any thing said in the bible and try to build some kind of political moral basis for increasing or decreasing any government program is sheer lunacy and is not a "spiritually minded" christian at all.
Lack of understanding what was said and done and written and WHY has caused no end of HATRED MISUNDERSTANDINGS WARS AND POLITICAL BACK STABBING AS WELL AS PERSONAL GRUDGES BETWEEN PEOPLE. AND IF THESE PEOPLE HOLD OFFICE THEY BRING ENTIRE COUNTRIES TO WAR.
Point at hand Greek2me does not understand sirguessalot's reference to Jesus. Therefore attempts to exclude sirguessalot from this thread. Shall we also exclude him from all threads? Or just the ones Greek2me picks.
Greek2me, you have apparently skipped the Thessolonians reference. Am I to conclude or get the idea that you do not see what was said or straight out against what was said. Another War I suppose.
Clearly to the spiritually minded this is not about working a secular job and eating your meat and veggies.
The working and eating is there for all to see. No one who will not put the effort into a thing will be able to eat of it. Thank God. Yes then rain falls on the just and the unjust. The just know what it is while the other does not although it is raining all over the place.
I'll restate it in case you missed it. If you read the chapter, it's quite clear it's not speaking of physical food. Therefore cannot be applied as such and was never intended to be.
I'll restate it in case you missed it. If you read the chapter, it's quite clear it's not speaking of physical food. Therefore cannot be applied as such and was never intended to be.
I believe you are mistaken here, Dancing.
The verse you're referring to here, (2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. ) is obviously an exhortation against sloth. St. Paul clearly shows this as the tradition he left, through his own example cited in vv 6-9. He reiterates this point very clearly in vv 11-14.
The rather obvious interpretation that this is referring to sloth (i.e., laziness) is the consistent understanding of this verse pointed out by numerous Church fathers throughout the early history of the Church:
St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Magnesians (circa 110 AD), said: Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” (Ep. Magn. IX)
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa 2c): 1. But let every one that cometh in the name of the Lord be received,2481 and afterward ye shall prove and know him; for ye shall have understanding right and left. 2. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. 3. But if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; but if he hath no trade, 4. according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. 5. But if he willeth not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such.
The Apostolic Constitutions (around 400 AD): LXIII. Let the young persons of the Church endeavour to minister diligently in all necessaries: mind your business with all becoming seriousness, that so you may always have sufficient to support yourselves and those that are needy, and not burden the Church of God. For we ourselves, besides our attention to the word of the Gospel, do not neglect our inferior employments. For some of us are fishermen, some tentmakers, some husbandmen, that so we may never be idle. So says Solomon somewhere: "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways diligently, and become wiser than she. For she, having neither field, overseer, nor ruler, prepareth her food in the summer, and layeth up a great store in the harvest. Or else go to the bee, and learn how laborious she is, and her work how valuable it is, whose labours both kings and mean men make use of for their health. She is desirable and glorious, though she be weak in strength, yet by honouring wisdom she is improved, etc. How long wilt thou lie on thy bed, O sluggard? When wilt thou awake out of thy sleep? Thou sleepest awhile thou liest down awhile, thou slumberest awhile, thou foldest thy hands on thy breast to sleep awhile. Then poverty comes on thee like an evil traveller, and want as a swift racer. But if thou beest diligent, thy harvest shall come as a fountain, and want shall fly from thee as an evil runagate." And again: "He that manageth his own land shall be filled with bread." And elsewhere he says: "The slothful has folded his own hands together, and has eaten his own flesh." And afterwards: "The sluggard hides his hand; he will not be able to bring it to his mouth." And again: "By slothfulness of the hands a floor will be brought low." Labour therefore continually; for the blot of the slothful is not to be healed. But "if any one does not work, let not such a one eat" among you. For the Lord our God hates the slothful. For no one of those who are dedicated to God ought to be idle.
As you can see from the above, it's fairly obvious that the exhortation to work in 2 Th 3:10 is clearly an exhortation against physical sloth...and it's pretty apparent that it has always been understood in that fashion.
I just tend to see the working and eating aspect as being more of a spiritual nature. And I do appreciate how politely you addressed this issue with me. No tanks or missiles or bombs...hehe...thanks. :)
I just tend to see the working and eating aspect as being more of a spiritual nature. And I do appreciate how politely you addressed this issue with me. No tanks or missiles or bombs...hehe...thanks. :)
This is the doctrinal basement. We generally try to be a little more polite down here (at least most of us). Get a cup of espresso and listen to some jazz. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
To me this seems to be addressing actually experiencing and living spiritually. Working as in facing the experience of working out your own salvation rather then relying on others to do it for you. Therefore they would not be able to eat, digest, and bring the fruit of righteousness to bear on their own. For there are many that will not face the Christ and run and hide from that which is hidden within. For various reasons of course. And not to put anyone in a bad light but expressly disclose that it is the individual person who must work and eat rather then to be a busybody in others salvation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
10
9
18
Popular Days
May 26
23
May 25
9
May 24
9
May 27
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 7 posts
Greek2me 10 posts
markomalley 9 posts
dancing 18 posts
Popular Days
May 26 2006
23 posts
May 25 2006
9 posts
May 24 2006
9 posts
May 27 2006
6 posts
allan w.
Well said !! I hope Greektoyou that you are doing something constructive towards the upcoming Kingdom...(somehow I get the 'feelin' you are) !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
A person's spirituality and the degree to which they embrace that spirituality would naturally have a great impact on their politics...of course...otherwise the spirituality is nothing but a joke.
For example, Catholic social doctrine is based upon four basic principles: the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity. Properly understood, that impacts a huge multitude of political platform planks:
- the death penalty
- the existence of and structure of social assistance for the poor
- foreign policy (not only war, but where and how to administer aid to relieve poverty overseas)
- and so on
If a person says that his personal belief system has no bearing on his political positions, he's either a fool or a liar.
In regard to a spiritually-minded Christian mandating either a liberal or conservative position as a whole, I'd think that the person either doesn't fully understand Christian spirituality or liberal/conservative politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
So let's see...No to condoms to help curb overpopulation and aids in third world countries
the torture and murder of 'heretics'
the rampant and unchecked sexual abuse of young boys.
Sorry, did I miss something ?? What political stance do the RCs' take ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Don't let him goad ya Mark, which is all he is trying to do. Oh wait, I forgot, he considers himself our savior - he is here to save us from those who would lead us astray from God.
Nevermind that he worships the teachings of a man who raped women and oppressed even more . . . :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, Abigail, I don't take Allan seriously.
Besides that, compared to Jack Chick & company, he's weak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I dunno Greek.
I think Paul was probably refering to those who busibodied all day, playing church, and then expected to sit at the collective dinner table eating the food suplied by those that worked outside of the chuch. I think Paul was refering to something that was specifically going on witihin the church in Thessalonica. I don't think Paul was speaking to society as a whole but rather a specific situation in the church at Thessalonica.
My question is can we or should we remove this "don't work / dont eat" rule from it historical/ecclesiastical context and force it upon society as a whole?
For example, a man is a lazy drunk and won't work. However he has a family - a wife and 3 kids. The wife is basicaly undeducated and barely makes minimum wage. In regardes to social welfare for this family, how could the don't work/ don't eat rule be fairly applied?
Doesn't God allow the sun to shine on both the evil and the righteoous? My point is that He does not dim the sun to prevent the unjust from getting sunshine, becasue if He did that, then the just woudnt get any sunshine either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"Blessed are the poor...blessed are those who hunger now...blessed are those who weep now..."
Oh, I forgot. According to old Way dispensational leanings, a number of you don't actually believe the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels pertain to us at all, not being addressed to us.
It's quite difficult to follow a savior whose words don't even apply to you, isn't it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
With great trepidation of living up to my 'bully boy' persona...there needs to be some form of context and 'to whom it is written' with scripture dontcha think Danny boy ?? Otherwise what Paul and others had to say about working with ones own hands etc.. would have been in total contrast to the words of Jesus.
Don't forget Jesus also talked about slothfulness and bad stewardship etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Joey,
That's the point... exactly! To me, it seems those that are liberally minded politically see the words of Jesus 'feed the poor, heal the sick' etc. as directives to form government programs to do said acts and NOT the church.
In fact, one poster in the other forum used the above words to say that Jesus would be considered a liberal today.
The words Paul wrote to the Thessalonians are directed to the Church. Period.
According to the opinions stated by the liberally minded, that's exactly what the 'religious right' is doing when, in fact, it is the liberals who have removed Church doctrine and applied it to society as a whole. (feed the poor, heal the sick)As far as your hypothetical goes... I only have one word to say. Family... in the truest sense of the word, not a politically defined term of convenience and appeasement.
My question is this; if it's ok for the one to be removed form the historical/ecclesiastical context, why isn't, (or shouldn't) it be ok for the other?
Absolutely. At the same time, He doesn't say set up a government scheme to allow the sun to shine. Yes, the rain falls on the just and unjust and yes, everyone who is justified by the blood of Christ was just as unjust as the unjust.
The questions remain; would a spiritually-minded Christian be more likely to be a liberal politically speaking, or conservative?
And
What Scriptural evidence is there to support one way or the other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
1.) Is there anything at the beginning of each of the canonical gospels to indicate "to whom written" or "to whom addressed"? Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus; Mark begins with "The Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God..."; "Luke" begins with a narrative addressed to 'Theopholus" along with the author/editor's attempt to put forth a more perfect treatise to offset the situation that there were many gospels in circulation at the time he wrote; and John begins with the logos prologue, derived in great part from the "Wisdom" genre at the time.
But outside of this, no superscription on each of the canonical versions that spells out "to whom addressed"...
2. It is suggested by many scholars that the actual time of writing of the Gospels (or the versions thereof) took place the latter part of the first century; in other words, they were actually written after the Pauline epistles.
3. If there was a specific audience or readership intended by the Gospel writers, then lacking explicit superscriptions, the next recourse we have would be to examine the characteristics within the narrative of each of the Gospels to glean and reconstruct each of the Gospel writers' intent. These four gospels did not start as a unit of four as it might be erroneously supposed ( recall that there were apparently many gospels in circulation at the time 'Luke" penned his version) - they apparently enjoyed a life amidst their unique Christian communities prior to becoming gathered into the canonical collection with which we are now familiar.
4. It is well known that "Matthew" exhibits traits throughout - being commonly supposed as having originally penned in a Semitic language (the fragments of Papias are oft cited here in its mention of a gospel written in the Hebrew language), in addition to its 5-fold narrative structure - suggestive that such would have had especial appeal to a Jewish audience, or, Jewish-Christians. Others have reasonably proposed an Ebionite audience.
5.While on the other hand, "Luke' carries a different emphasis concerning its intended readership, which is highly suggestive of a primarily "Gentile" audience. It should be noted that of all the Gospels, only Luke contains Jesus' commissioning of "the seventy" (which, we all know, was a number signifying the nations).
Add to this the healing of the Roman centurian's slave, and the apparent more literal emphasis of Jesus' sermon contained in Luke 6 in comparison to the more figurative emphasis of Matthew.
6,) If I had to amend the system of dispensationalism, I would not draw a sharp line of demarcation between the entire body of Gospels and the Pauline epistles, as Bullinger and Wierwille had insensitively done - such an erroneous methodology ignores the actual literary and historical content and contexts of these writings - for the Jewish Christians of their communities apparently had their version(s) of the Gospel(s) (akin to Matthew), while the Gentile-Christians had in circulation among them their own version(s) primarily intended for them (akin to our canonical "Luke"). In fact, it is interesting to note that Paul's reproduction of Jesus' communion in 1 Cor. 11 follows more the wording of the Lukan account than any other.
7.) I would highly suggest that if you really want to grasp the import of what Jesus' "political" leanings might have been, get caught up to speed on actual biblical research done this past century, and a fine area for expanding your investigations would be in the area of studies done on Jesus' parables, beginning with C.H. Dodd's "Parables of the Kingdom" and J. Jeremias' "Parables of Jesus" to the more recent groundbreaking "Parables as Subversive Speech" by Herzog. Jesus' parables had explosive implications in the era and the social setting they were first aired, and there's little doubt that the content of His parables alone would have resulted in Him being crucified by the state perhaps more than anything else He had uttered at the time.
8.) in discussing the era and environment of Jesus in Palestine, we are most certainly NOT dealing with a modern American (nor Aussie) economic, political and social system. A good many of Jesus' parables underscored the oppression and exploitation of the ruling classes of His society. But we oft fail to grasp this 20 centuries later within the comforts of our own world.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
2 Thessalonians 3
1Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
4And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
5And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.
17The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.
18The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Clearly to the spiritually minded this is not about working a secular job and eating your meat and veggies.
The working and eating is there for all to see. No one who will not put the effort into a thing will be able to eat of it. Thank God. Yes then rain falls on the just and the unjust. The just know what it is while the other does not although it is raining all over the place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
What is sent from God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Greek,
You bring up a very valid point and one that is not widely understood by many of those Christian "liberals."
They consider the issues of the common good and solidarity without considering the importance of the dignity of the human person and subsidiarity. This is why so many good-hearted people end up endorsing such socialistic policies. They have the appearance of "doing something."
These programs do not necessarily work, though, because of the lack of consideration of the principle of subsidiarity (something done should be done at the most local community level possible: first, by the individual himself, then by immediate family, then by extended family, then by the community, and only if the action cannot be effectively accomplished at the more immediate level, it should be accomplished at the broader level). Just because something isn't being done at the more immeidate level is no justification for having that responsibility usurped by the broader level. In usurping this reposnibility from the immediate level (family, community) where it should be accomplished, the broader level (state/national/trans-national) ends up introducing corruption, inefficiency, injustice (forced redistribution), and ends up impacting the dignity of the human person of all who are involved in the process: the recipient, the social worker, and the funder of that ill-placed largesse.
As you said: immediately assuming something that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.
Again, I don't believe that the Christian liberal is wrong-hearted. I just believe he has been incompletely formed...needs some more education to take that big heart of his and apply it in a truly constructive, Christian fashion.
The Christian liberal's heart, though, is far different than those who espouse an immature, incomplete, and ego-centric social theology that was taught by TWI and by a few other so-called Bible-Based conservative groups: the theology of "to hell with the unbeliever." Their theology attempts to misuse a subset of scripture to justify not applying charity to others. The perverseness of this is that they have the appearance of accepting God's mercy for their lives (they believe they are totally unaccountable in their actions, even to God, as they are "born again" and are guaranteed heaven regardless of their actions or beliefs on earth subsequent to a single regenerative event). They quote scripture in an effort to completely disregard any responsibility for the poor. They are a truly miserable lot.
This is a tremendous topic for consideration and I'm glad you opened it for discussion here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
btw Mark I've seen where the Catholic Church has helped more people then I've ever seen before in regards to physical needs. Even in the category of those who cannot take care of themselves from birth.
I have worked at a number of Catholic places that help all sorts of people. The work of it is commendable to say the least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Mark,
Eureka!
Very well said.That's why I stated at the end of the first post that said programs or government directives may at first glance seem to be the right thing to do, but in reality are an immeasurable evil.
When I said this, I was speaking from a family value perspective. I wonder if there are statistics that document the demise of the family in correlation with government social programs? I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
I agree.
Danny,
Plenty to chew on. I'll get to it shortly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well...i just hafta say that it seems to me as if Jesus's views of politics were (and are) worlds beyond (but including) our notions of "liberal" and "conservative" values of today
i think such attempts to tag political bumper stickers on the stories and wisdom of Jesus is a shame and a travesty, and only serves to increase our hatred and ignorance towards each other...and double-standards abound
besides...2000 years have gone by...and the world has dramatically changed too many times since then.
what was ahead of its time 2000 years ago is not what is ahead of its time today
i mean...if someone brings a post-post-modern message to the pre-modern world, how can we compare it directly to what that same person would do in a post-modern world?
any attempt at a direct connection seems either dishonest or uninformed, or a stab-at-the-dark
it's as if we have mostly lost our sense of our actual place in time in this era of hyper-change
and our collective sanity is being quite swept away by it
i would say that most all religious systems of today that are based on ancient texts, are too far removed from their roots to claim a direct connection to the teachings or practices, either politically or religiously.
this seems a dominant trait of our post-modern funk...and quite natural, considering human nature, and the endlessly growing mountains of history we must contend with
yet it seems today's religious forms are already too supported by and into their system and puffed with pride to admit such an increasing radical disconnect
...
and i find it amazing how easily and how much and how many ways we celebrate our sense of pride in the name of the Bible...and strangely, to the point of being proud of pride
i mean...who could take the shame of a true radical humility, now that all these centuries and centuries of claims have been made (and killed for)?
if many evangelical politicans/ministers could bring themselves to honestly look into fields like cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology, and apply them to the biblical records and integrate what he found with his beliefs...they would have to live a lie...or reshape their beliefs
...which of course...might feel too much like dying inside
...like shattering the heart like a clay pot
but if we are honestly following in the steps of Jesus...this is something we would do daily, hourly, moment-by-moment...with joy and gladness
if nothing else...in order to avoid the trauma of only doing it once-in-a-lifetime
or at the end of life
...
and too...from what i understand, our present day clash of ideologies is not about the usual and over-simplified "left versus right," anway, but more like a clash between at least 4 highly partial value systems...and none of them are inclusive enough to be called "spiritual" in any classic sense of the world, though a few of them are relatively new to human history (each of which is both an improvement, and a new set of problems)
...a clash of many competing instinctual goods (like the ole' lion versus a calf versus a man versus an eagle, for example)
yet still...there are simply no political systems today that represent the individual radical philosophies of that infamous kid from Galilee
his included aspects of so many things...the original "catch me if you can," perhaps
he was so free from the institutions, that he could serve them all, to some degree
and so its no wonder we always fail (and fight) when we try to pin down the values of the "prince of peace"
and when there is a system that can live up to that caliber of universal care...it might be safe to say that He will have returned to the world
i think we will know it when there is real and actual worldwide peace and joy (don't hold yer breath, right?)
...
but that aside...i do think the world is in dire need of a more effective level of international dialogue about the relationships between politics and religion (and business)
but i am not sure if enough influential people are capable or willing...let alone believe such a thing is valuable or possible
sadly, these days....such a dialogue may even cause more war, not less
(and so we mostly only talk about religion over here, politics over there, and business over there)
and especially sad if those who hold the keys of power do not even believe that there are values or morals higher than (and complimentary to) their own...they will simply never bother to reach for what they will not consider...how can they?
but having said that...things are simply more complex than they ever were
and psychological and cultural and social and technological diversity continues to explode and frighten the heck out of most of us
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Danny,
Points 1-5 I'm not so sure they play such an important role in the topic at hand.
Point 6. I agree. I don't see dispensations in the way TWI taught. In fact I see such teaching as simply worng, if not destructive.
#7 This discussion isn't about Jesus Christs political leanings. It's meant to be about whether a spiritually minded Christian would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative political lens, and if there is Scriptural evidence to support said views.
#8 I agree. We are not dealing with America or Australia or any other country per se. We are dealing with individuals and their personal beliefs. That said, The Scriptures don't change. What was right and just when Christ spoke to those then, is right and just now.
Sir guess,
Wow,
I would disagree. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He hasn't changed, nor will He. The only way to be "too far removed from their roots" is to be too far removed from THE root.I agree. No one is trying to tag anyone. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong.
This is an honest attempt at a dialogue about a subject that could use a hefty dose of honesty and humility in it's approach.
Care to elaborate on the 4 partial systems?No offence, but Jesus can hardly be called an "infamous kid from Galilee." If that's all you think of Him, then you should exclude yourself from further discussion of this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
To take a phrase like that or any thing said in the bible and try to build some kind of political moral basis for increasing or decreasing any government program is sheer lunacy and is not a "spiritually minded" christian at all.
Lack of understanding what was said and done and written and WHY has caused no end of HATRED MISUNDERSTANDINGS WARS AND POLITICAL BACK STABBING AS WELL AS PERSONAL GRUDGES BETWEEN PEOPLE. AND IF THESE PEOPLE HOLD OFFICE THEY BRING ENTIRE COUNTRIES TO WAR.
Point at hand Greek2me does not understand sirguessalot's reference to Jesus. Therefore attempts to exclude sirguessalot from this thread. Shall we also exclude him from all threads? Or just the ones Greek2me picks.
Greek2me, you have apparently skipped the Thessolonians reference. Am I to conclude or get the idea that you do not see what was said or straight out against what was said. Another War I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I'll restate it in case you missed it. If you read the chapter, it's quite clear it's not speaking of physical food. Therefore cannot be applied as such and was never intended to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I believe you are mistaken here, Dancing.
The verse you're referring to here, (2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat. ) is obviously an exhortation against sloth. St. Paul clearly shows this as the tradition he left, through his own example cited in vv 6-9. He reiterates this point very clearly in vv 11-14.
The rather obvious interpretation that this is referring to sloth (i.e., laziness) is the consistent understanding of this verse pointed out by numerous Church fathers throughout the early history of the Church:
St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Magnesians (circa 110 AD), said: Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” (Ep. Magn. IX)
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa 2c): 1. But let every one that cometh in the name of the Lord be received,2481 and afterward ye shall prove and know him; for ye shall have understanding right and left. 2. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. 3. But if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; but if he hath no trade, 4. according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. 5. But if he willeth not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such.
The Apostolic Constitutions (around 400 AD): LXIII. Let the young persons of the Church endeavour to minister diligently in all necessaries: mind your business with all becoming seriousness, that so you may always have sufficient to support yourselves and those that are needy, and not burden the Church of God. For we ourselves, besides our attention to the word of the Gospel, do not neglect our inferior employments. For some of us are fishermen, some tentmakers, some husbandmen, that so we may never be idle. So says Solomon somewhere: "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways diligently, and become wiser than she. For she, having neither field, overseer, nor ruler, prepareth her food in the summer, and layeth up a great store in the harvest. Or else go to the bee, and learn how laborious she is, and her work how valuable it is, whose labours both kings and mean men make use of for their health. She is desirable and glorious, though she be weak in strength, yet by honouring wisdom she is improved, etc. How long wilt thou lie on thy bed, O sluggard? When wilt thou awake out of thy sleep? Thou sleepest awhile thou liest down awhile, thou slumberest awhile, thou foldest thy hands on thy breast to sleep awhile. Then poverty comes on thee like an evil traveller, and want as a swift racer. But if thou beest diligent, thy harvest shall come as a fountain, and want shall fly from thee as an evil runagate." And again: "He that manageth his own land shall be filled with bread." And elsewhere he says: "The slothful has folded his own hands together, and has eaten his own flesh." And afterwards: "The sluggard hides his hand; he will not be able to bring it to his mouth." And again: "By slothfulness of the hands a floor will be brought low." Labour therefore continually; for the blot of the slothful is not to be healed. But "if any one does not work, let not such a one eat" among you. For the Lord our God hates the slothful. For no one of those who are dedicated to God ought to be idle.
As you can see from the above, it's fairly obvious that the exhortation to work in 2 Th 3:10 is clearly an exhortation against physical sloth...and it's pretty apparent that it has always been understood in that fashion.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
You could be right Mark.
I just tend to see the working and eating aspect as being more of a spiritual nature. And I do appreciate how politely you addressed this issue with me. No tanks or missiles or bombs...hehe...thanks. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
This is the doctrinal basement. We generally try to be a little more polite down here (at least most of us). Get a cup of espresso and listen to some jazz. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
To me this seems to be addressing actually experiencing and living spiritually. Working as in facing the experience of working out your own salvation rather then relying on others to do it for you. Therefore they would not be able to eat, digest, and bring the fruit of righteousness to bear on their own. For there are many that will not face the Christ and run and hide from that which is hidden within. For various reasons of course. And not to put anyone in a bad light but expressly disclose that it is the individual person who must work and eat rather then to be a busybody in others salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.