The Confusion of Christian and Conservative Values

[Jim_Krauser]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

[James_Gale]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

That is an intellectually dishonest essay, to say the least. The author caricaturizes conservative points of view, painting them as mean, Ill-informed, and contrary to everything that Jesus taught.  It's then a short step for him to argue that while evangelicals claim to love Jesus but they reject his teachings.  (He then gets deeply into an 8th-Commandment problem, arguing that evangelicals truly do love Jesus, but only because there's something in it for them (the selfish bastards); namely, salvation.  It's all a crass bargain.

One could make the same arguments based on caricaturizations of liberal positions.  That would be every bit as dishonest.

[John_Hannah]

The confusion abounds in American Lutheranism. We seem to have traded conservative or liberal political values for creed. That encourages folks to stop going to church.

"Support the party of your choice with the money that used to go to the church. Do something "meaningful' on Sundays, like go to the beach."

Our respective (ELCA liberal or LCMS conservative) paths of decline demonstrate the power of American politics over religious belief.

Peace, JOHN

[George Erdner]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

You start.

[Steverem]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

Misters Zuckerman and Cady (and can someone please correct the byline?  Which one of these gentlemen is professor at Cal State-Fresno?  Who is the other one?) have created a virtual army of straw men here.  We're back to the old canard that evangelicals are "poor, uneducated, and easily led," but this article adds to the list "insincere" and "hypocritical."  It is a hit piece, with two men framing what they believe to be evangelical positions in the absolute worst light, and then claiming the moral high ground and wagging their collective finger at these stupid evangelicals from their ivory tower.  It is a gross mischaracterization of these Christians.  Frankly, Pastor Krauser, I question why you would present such an obnoxious article as if it had even a whiff of credulity.  

[Terry W Culler]

I guess I'll add my 2 cents here.  This article is garbage written by people who divorce the Jesus of the substitutionary atonement  from the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount.  Heretics have done that for millennia. 

Now, let's have a real discussion about the relationship of Christianity and Christian values to American politics.  I've been disturbed for way too long by the willingness of Christians to make common cause with people who really have nothing but contempt for us (that is, large segments of the Republican party).  A few years ago James Dobson argued that it was a Christian position to support renewal of the Patriot Act.  Now it might have been a good decision for the kingdom of the left, but it was not a Christian issue in any way.  Christians have put themselves so deeply into the GOP's pocket that we have no effect on the thinking of the Democratic party.  The fact of the matter is, Republicans trot around every couple of years claiming they will stop abortion, and they never do.  They claim they'll put prayer back in schools, and they never will.  They claim they believe in what we teach and confess, and then go out and act just like all the other pagans in America.

Christian values are not the same as any worldly value set.  Ours come from the Word of God, not the opionions of any set of men.  We've muddied the waters so much that many people can't tell the difference between the 2 kingdoms at all.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't go to a church where the pastor preached a free market "gospel" or a social justices "gospel".  I want one where the real Gospel, the good news of Jesus, Crucified and Risen for the atonement of our sins, is preached.

[Jim_Krauser]

The author believes that the "Evangelicals" (a term which is far too broad for those he criticizes) have limited the idea of Christian values to specific items that become a set of shibboleths for the "true" faithful.  In so doing they sideline or ignore completely issues of social and economic justice which have a higher biblical profile than the attention paid to them by the religious right would suggest.  I am sympathetic to this argument.

I also believe it is also important for us, as a Christian community, to hear how our message is being communicated.  The author make not like some of the political activism of the Christians.  We may not like the implications the author draws from the political activism of certain Christians.  But we should note and ponder them.


 author=George Erdner link=topic=3847.msg218935#msg218935 date=1307372723]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

You start.

[/quote]

[Jim_Krauser]

Isn't that exactly the divorce the author is complaining of?

Yes, some have kept the Sermon on the Mount Jesus and jettisoned the Atonement Jesus ; is it not his contention that the "Evangelicals" divorce the Atonement Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount Jesus?  His argument is that in the religious right, he doesn't see both.

I guess I'll add my 2 cents here.  This article is garbage written by people who divorce the Jesus of the substitutionary atonement  from the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount.  Heretics have done that for millennia. 

[Terry W Culler]

Maybe I misread it, but it looks to me as if he/they think that we ought to be followers of Jesus' teachings and not focus on the Gospel.  That's not a divorce, that's a heresy.  Christians do both.  Too many evangelcals act as if it is only"Jesus and me" and ignore the rest.  At the same time, liberals stress Jesus the teacher and ignore the Atonement because they don't want to get all "superstitious" and look like they engage in "divine child abuse" as one of them described the Atonement.  Both are dead wrong.  But sneering at evangelicals is not theology it is self righteousness.

Isn't that exactly the divorce the author is complaining of?

Yes, some have kept the Sermon on the Mount Jesus and jettisoned the Atonement Jesus ; is it not his contention that the "Evangelicals" divorce the Atonement Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount Jesus?  His argument is that in the religious right, he doesn't see both.

I guess I'll add my 2 cents here.  This article is garbage written by people who divorce the Jesus of the substitutionary atonement  from the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount.  Heretics have done that for millennia. 

[Steven Tibbetts]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

If this is a reflection of "religious intelligence," I have more sympathy for those modern athiests who reject faith on the grounds that it is inherently stupid.  Messrs. Zuckerman and Cady demonstrate an even shallower understanding of the Christian Faith and American citizenship than they accuse White Evangelicals of having.

Oh, this isn't the only place people are discussing it.  http://bigjournalism.com/lmeyers/2011/03/12/why-phil-zuckerman-hates-god/

[Brian Stoffregen]

Christian values are not the same as any worldly value set.

What Jesus taught us to value above all else is repentance for the forgiveness of sins and trust that God indeed forgives the penitent.

I agree with the following quote from Robert Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox, pp. 132-133, reprinted in The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair with Theology, p. 345

The church is not in the morals business. The world is in the morals business, quite rightfully; and it has done a fine job of it, all things considered. The history of the world's moral codes is a monument to the labors of many philosophers, and it is a monument of striking unity and beauty. As C.S. Lewis said, anyone who thinks the moral codes of mankind are all different should be locked up in a library and be made to read three days' worth of them. He would be bored silly by the sheer sameness.

What the world cannot get right, however, is the forgiveness business – and that, of course, is the church's real job. She is in the world to deal with the Sin which the world can't turn off or escape from. She is not in the business of telling the world what's right and wrong so that it can do good and avoid evil. She is in the business of offering, to a world which knows all about that tiresome subject, forgiveness for its chronic unwillingness to take its own advice. But the minute she even hints that morals, and not forgiveness, is the name of her game, she instantly corrupts the Gospel and runs headlong into blatant nonsense.

When the church or its people start confusing our call to bring forgiveness to sinners with some sort of moral behaviors; we've lost the gospel.

Regardless of a person's moral positions and their attempts to live a good, moral life; we proclaim to them that they have failed to live up to God's demands. They need to repent. They will be forgiven by God through Christ.

Of course it is also necessary to uphold the civil use of the law for good order in society, as ways we love our neighbors; but that is not Christianity. Christians should be good, law-abiding, moral citizens; but that isn't what makes them Christians. Rather it's their willingness to recognize and repent of their sins and receive the graceful forgiveness that God offers.

[Bergs]

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/category/christianity/evangelical/

Discuss.

Well, perhaps someone will further take down this piece which looks to be perfectly written--FOR THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW (stylistically no different from Sean Hannity).  Definitely as stated in a later post this is how "some" of the American Public sees things.  I will grab a few of the lines as there are really better things to do.  This piece is nothing less than a liberal hit job that needs no serious consideration.  Though I can understand Rev. Krauser's sympathy with the basic argument, this article is so snarky it brings out the worst in my sarcasm.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness.

Starting point made simplistically, forcefully and menacingly incomplete.  No question Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness to those who seek it.  For those who pray "Thank God I am not like that poor sinner," their post-veil-of tears experience may disappoint.

These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Well given the lead off sentence above, this straw man got slapped together with ease.  So when the thief nailed up there on Calvary with Jesus confessed, can we assume that the Lord messed up by failing to miraculously cause the soldiers to end the execution and send the man to learn sandal repair.  I mean what a teachable moment for future evangelicals was missed here!  We also know that only time Jesus used the word “justice” it was in the sense a criminal getting his due punishment.  And lets face it, Jesus’ description of Sheol contains significant physical pain.  This is not to say Jesus condoned the death penalty, harsh sentencing, and water boarding.  Evangelicals know just as well as liberals that forgiveness and rehab are better when there is real repentence.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent.

Yes but he also had a rather violent temper with unrepentant sinners (but maybe that’s just with money changers, those nasty running-dog capitalists). 

And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

The clear projection of this attitude is that Jesus must have had a little sign in the upper room saying “The Lord of Life prohibits the carrying of sidearms on these premises.”  But we from first hand accounts that the Apostle Peter was packing and knew how to use it.

What’s the deal?
Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don’t exactly hate Jesus — as we’ve provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him.

To begin with, what an insulting tone!    Perhaps those trained at a seminary can correct me but I hope the gist of this statement is really the over-arching reason that liberals love Jesus too.  We are all at the foot of the cross, damned to Hell, and are saved by Grace alone.  Don’t we all start here as the basis for loving God?

Mercy, mercy, mercy
Brian J Bergs,
Minneapolis, MN

[peter_speckhard]

Given that Democrat positions are the positions of Jesus, isn't it ironic that those who claim to love Jesus take contrary positions, while those who are least likely to attend church, claim to have any faith whatsoever or any relationship at all with Jesus, nevertheless are Christ-like in their politics.

There, I summarized the article for those who didn't feel like following the link. And yes, it is a fair summary. 

[Rev. Kevin Scheuller]

Given that Democrat positions are the positions of Jesus, isn't it ironic that those who claim to love Jesus take contrary positions, while those who are least likely to attend church, claim to have any faith whatsoever or any relationship at all with Jesus, nevertheless are Christ-like in their politics.

There, I summarized the article for those who didn't feel like following the link. And yes, it is a fair summary. 

I believe you - thanks for saving me the time.

[iowakatie1981]

Christian values are not the same as any worldly value set.

What Jesus taught us to value above all else is repentance for the forgiveness of sins and trust that God indeed forgives the penitent.

I agree with the following quote from Robert Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox, pp. 132-133, reprinted in The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair with Theology, p. 345

The church is not in the morals business. The world is in the morals business, quite rightfully; and it has done a fine job of it, all things considered. The history of the world's moral codes is a monument to the labors of many philosophers, and it is a monument of striking unity and beauty. As C.S. Lewis said, anyone who thinks the moral codes of mankind are all different should be locked up in a library and be made to read three days' worth of them. He would be bored silly by the sheer sameness.

What the world cannot get right, however, is the forgiveness business – and that, of course, is the church's real job. She is in the world to deal with the Sin which the world can't turn off or escape from. She is not in the business of telling the world what's right and wrong so that it can do good and avoid evil. She is in the business of offering, to a world which knows all about that tiresome subject, forgiveness for its chronic unwillingness to take its own advice. But the minute she even hints that morals, and not forgiveness, is the name of her game, she instantly corrupts the Gospel and runs headlong into blatant nonsense.

When the church or its people start confusing our call to bring forgiveness to sinners with some sort of moral behaviors; we've lost the gospel.

Regardless of a person's moral positions and their attempts to live a good, moral life; we proclaim to them that they have failed to live up to God's demands. They need to repent. They will be forgiven by God through Christ.

Of course it is also necessary to uphold the civil use of the law for good order in society, as ways we love our neighbors; but that is not Christianity. Christians should be good, law-abiding, moral citizens; but that isn't what makes them Christians. Rather it's their willingness to recognize and repent of their sins and receive the graceful forgiveness that God offers.

Methinks St. Peter and David might disagree with Robert Capon. 

May the Church not do both?  That is to say, is she to preach the forgiveness of sins and yet, also enjoin those who desire to love life and see good days to "keep his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit; to turn away from evil and do good; to seek peace and pursue it." ??  For as we know, "the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are toward their prayer.  But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." 

Regardless of one's political preferences, let us not presume upon our Lord's mercy, let us not "sin all the more, so that grace may abound".  And yes, let us even spur one another on toward love and good deeds...