Fed up with evangelicals
I'm ranting today and this has been a long time coming.
I got another one of those newsmax emails. You know the ones that you get, like every 5 minutes, if you subscribe. This time the first headline was about Dr. James Dobson declaring that Fred Thompson is not a Christian. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Dobson, who later clarified his statement by saying that the term Christian should be understood to only apply to evangelicals. But enough is enough. When are evangelicals going to stop thinking they are the gatekeepers to Christendom. I know some of you are going to call me a hypocrite because I am quick to dole out judgement on certain lifestyles but make no mistake - even I know that condemnation of behaviors and acts cannot translate to an ability to read the thoughts and intents of the soul. Some behaviors are unchristlike. Some behaviors damage the fabric of society and undermine the growth and maturation of the individual. Some behaviors violate the commandments as uttered from Sinai and Galilee. However, if you believe in the grace of God, through the atonement of his only begotten, then you have to accept the fact that Christians come in all shapes and sizes and aren't necessarily recognizable at a distance depending on how long they've been traveling the road of discipleship and how well they understand the roadmap.
Christianity is an exclusionary religion. Either you believe Christ is the Messiah or you don't. There's no gray. But the mark of a Christian is not like a smudged fingerprint on one's forehead, no matter what Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (authors of the Left Behind series) imagine. The mark of discipleship is branded where only God can see. On the human heart. And when evangelicals start denying fellowship to others because of a perceived failure to meet some minimum standard, they place themselves in league with another proud and regimented denomination - the pharisees.
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:10-14
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/03/28 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
while I usually agree with dr. dobson and I have read many of his books he crossed the line here
Comment by elmers brother — 2007/03/28 @ 08:32 PM — (Reply)
P.S. I started to include links showing just how prevalent it is among evangelicals to bash other Christian churches and claim a corner on the market but there was a ridiculous quantity of those sites to choose from.
Comment by Cate— 2007/03/29 @ 03:55 AM — (Reply)
BTW what happened to Harry re: his latest shot at pro abortion logic?
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/03/29 @ 06:24 AM — (Reply)
Hey Cate,
I'm glad to see youre taking a more skeptical look at James Dobson. Actually, I've never understood why right wingers like James Dobson think they have an exclusive claim on the legacy of Jesus, particularly when the policies of the left are much closer to the actual teachings of Jesus (e.g., Jesus was against war and poverty but never mentioned gays or abortion). One of my recent videos touching on this topic is at:
Does the Right Hate Hillary Clinton Because She Is Too Christian?
Hope you like it :-)
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/03 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
And further, Hillary's socialistic policy is not the same as Christianity. Christ demands that we choose help our neighbor - it's about elevating humanity by emulating God (Matt 5:48) That is vastly different than having your good will raped by the artifices of government.
If the fed were to force you to go to church because legislators thought it was 'good for you', you would be the first to decry it. But let them take your money and redistribute it with only feigned representation and that's Christian? I'd suggest you read up on FREE WILL. Men do not become godly by force but by choice.
While legality and morality are not usually the same, it is overly simplistic to suggest that a society governed by men could be either wholly divine or completely amoral.
The only equitable approach is to apply the aspects of morality that have lasting social impact. You clearly believe that equates to progressive (unfair) taxation on citizens to support programs that expressly violate their beliefs (no thinking Christian believes that poverty is the heart of this issue, if American tax money were all spent on welfare to work, we'd have no poor instead it's spent on handing out condoms to teenagers, paying for free abortions for 13 year olds transported across state lines by a school counselor without so much as parental notification, and providing an AIDS curricula to Kindergarten teachers) I believe that it's saving the family and holding people accountable for their reproductive choices.
Pick your poison, culture warrior, but as for me and my house... we're standing up for family values.
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/04 @ 05:57 AM — (Reply)
Cate,
Your response does not address my point that Jesus was against war and poverty but never mentioned gays or abortion. After all, abortion is about free will, too. Why are you such a stauch defender of our free will to decide if we should help the poor (when Jesus specifically said to help the poor) but you do not support our free will to decide whether to continue a pregnancy (even though Jesus never said anything about that)? Seems like it should be the other way around.
And, the Bush Admistration's promise to help the poor in the way you describe was all a facade to fool people just like you. See this link:
Is Jesus on the Side of Bush and the Republicans?
Also, I'm not sure why you refer to Hillary Clinton's belief as "not the same as Christianity" In fact, while I'm not a big Hillary Clinton supporter, I do know she has devoted much of her life to the Methodist Church. Isn't your exclusion of Hillary Clinton from Christianity exactly what you were critic zing James Dobson for?
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/05 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
Regarding abortion: As a society we usurp free will all the time. We don't allow murder even if someone chooses to go postal. We don't allow bank robbing even if someone is desperately low on cash and chooses to don a ski mask and stage a stick-up. The social application of morality is undeniably tricky. And I don't pretend otherwise though your attempt to equate my moral positions to support for a particular candidate shows you do.
There is a huge difference in preventing a citizen from causing harm and forcing a citizen to do good. One is necessary the other robs men of their desire to serve and leaves them a crutch with which to abandon doing good... Why reach out and lift another when you can say, somewhat justifiably, "I already gave at the office."
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/05 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Cate,
I'm not sure how to take the accusation of "straw manning" from someone who called Hillary Clinton's policies "socialistic," but, even accepting your strawman, I still did not engage in "straw manning" because you have not explained why that "socialistic policy is not the same as Christianity." While people can find quotes to support almost anything in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Bibles (see, eg, my video: Saddam Shows Worst of Judeo-Christian-Islamic Tradition?), my study of the actual words of Jesus show them to be much closer to socialism than capitalism.
Where did Jesus ever say anything in favor of capitalism?
And, I also do not understand this distinction you make in comparing poverty and abortion by saying "There is a huge difference in preventing a citizen from causing harm and forcing a citizen to do good." In fact, failing to help the poor does quite a bit of harm and, as I explain in my personal beliefs about personhood, because a woman risks death by choosing to remain pregnant, we should appreciate pregnancy for the good deed that it is.
And, of course, you never explained why the government should get involved in stopping gays and abortion (which Jesus never mentioned), but not in stopping war and poverty which Jesus actually did mention were bad.
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/11 @ 07:32 AM — (Reply)
allen do you think because the Bible doesn't mention abortion specifically that it then means it advocates it? Do you think the policies of the right are meant to keep people in poverty?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/04/03 @ 09:57 PM — (Reply)
Elmers Brother,
No, I do not think that because the Bible doesn't mention abortion specifically that it then means it advocates it. Now, let me ask you:
Do you think just because I want to give choices about pregnancy to women and their doctors rather than the government that I, therefore, advocate abortion?
As for my opinion about the policies of the right towards the poor, I think it was all a facade with very little behind it as explained in my video at:
Is Jesus on the Side of Bush and the Republicans?
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/05 @ 03:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by the shalana— 2007/04/05 @ 05:09 PM — (Reply)
shalana wrote:
For a detailed explanation of my position, see: my personal beliefs about personhood
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/10 @ 09:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/04/14 @ 12:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/06 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/04/06 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/04/06 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/04/06 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
You are demanding explicit utterance to define the law. This approach reveals your insincerity - you want express policy statements so that you can throw open the floodgates of what's allowable based on ommissions in the statement.
In other words, if Christ said homosexuality is wrong, then you say bestiality is okay so long as it is with an animal of the opposite gender.
God in His infinite wisdom does not play politics at that level. He says the taking of an innocent life is wrong. You can quibble over it. Rationalize it. And pretend the words don't say what they do. But the implicit intent is clear and abortion does not pass moral muster.
He said "mulitply and replenish" and that can't be done outside of a heterosexual union. He said a man should cleave unto his wife and that doesn't allow for no-fault divorce. He said feed the poor and He said that a man should eat by the sweat of his brow. That means welfare to work, not entitlement and it doesn't show approbation for congressmen raising their own pay annually simply because annual increases aren's condemned.
The childish version of gotcha you're playing with Christianity is less revealing about Christians than it is about your true motivations.
If you want to argue that Christianity shouldn't be the basis of American law - that is a worthy discussion but laying claim to divine approval based on an issue that your party has miserably failed to address (Just how long has that war on poverty been going on?) is ludicrous in light of the aimless wandering that the morally unanchored ship U.S.S. DNC has done for the past 40 years.
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/06 @ 07:49 PM — (Reply)
Cate,
I'm not sure why you question my "true" motives when you write:
In fact, I don't feel like I'm playing a "childish version of gotcha" at all. There are a lot of people like me who are noticing that there are certain people on the right (like James Dobson who was the subject of your original posting) who use Christianity as a club with which to beat people for their supposed ideological impurities. Having studied the relevant texts, however, I just don't see how people can use them to exclude the interpretations of others that are at least as reasonable as their own.
Now, in your attempt to interpret Jesus into a position on gays, abortion, and, even welfare-to-work, I notice you refer to the "spirit of the law." To me, this phrase is an admission that you realize you are straying into interpretations only loosely based on the text. And, in your argument, you quote passages not even spoken by Jesus which are from the Jewish Bible.
So, your references to these partial passages from a different book still don't show me where Jesus said anything about gays or abortion. And, given that poverty and war were problems mentioned by Jesus while gays and abortion were not, I believe the Democrats focus on the former over the latter makes them more concerned with actual Christian issues.
Allen
Comment by Allen— 2007/04/11 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
Michael Medved addresses the 'socialist' issue just today.
You want to use perceived omissions by Christ as justification but the reality is that he had no need to speak to issues that were already addressed. Why don't American presidents give speeches on emancipation of slaves? The issue has already been definitively resolved. Christ did not have a need to speak to homosexuality because the law was clear. If it were not so, then why, among the myriad of references to marriage in the NT is there no single reference to a husband's treatment of his husband?
And what exactly is your response to the WAR ON POVERTY your party is supposedly fighting? The percentage of impoverished has remained steady for 50+ years. Same 8-11% - even when we raise minimum wage. Why aren't all those hungry Russians fed and cared for under the system? Why are Canadians coming south for competent and expedient medical care? Could it be that social liberalism is a miserable failure?
Let me guess... the man is holding you back.
One word: Horsepuckey!
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/11 @ 09:41 AM — (Reply)
In point of fact, the official rate of poverty in 1959 (first year estimates are available from) was 22.4%. The most recent estimate, from 2005, is significantly lower at 12.6%. In fact, out of the 48 years since 1959, the poverty rate has declined in 31 of those 48 years. Each year that has seen an increase in the poverty rate is tied to or precipitated by an economic recession- something that can hardly be found surprising. It would be self-serving to note that the years that saw an increase in poverty rates, but no economic recessionin that specific year, were years that had a Bush either as president or vice-president, so I'll just leave that alone and call it pure coincidence.
The numbers are similar if you look at sub-sections of the "poor." The poverty rate for families was 18.5% in 1959, it is 9.9% in 2005. The poverty rate for familes with a female head of household was 42.6% in 1959, it is 28.7% in 2005.
It's very true that most of the success in the "war" occured in the first decade, from 1959 to 1973, and that our poverty rate has never surpassed the low it hit in 1973 (11.1%), though we came close in 2000 at 11.3%. 1973 say the start of an 18 month recession, and 2001 had nearly a year long recession, both of which undid much of the gains up to that point.
These numbers don't even take into account the anecdotal evidence that various conservative organizations are fond of pulling out, detailing how the poor of 2005 have it so much better than the poor of 2005. Various numbers comparing car-ownership, televisions, "crowded"residences all might be used as justification that the war on poverty HAS succeeded. The real "truth" of that question is probably open to debate and interpretation... For those interested in a detailed study of the question, I recommend this article by Nicholas Eberstadt.
I don't contest your theory that charity should be voluntary, not forced, Cate. Nor do I disagree that many government assistance programs that have been set up have been poorly thought-out or implemented. Any time money is put into play, corruption and cheating is inevitable, it seems. But at least on one point, I think your argument against "social liberalism" is sorely wanting.
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/11 @ 11:44 AM — (Reply)
that should say "how the poor of 2005 have it so much better than the poor of 1970, or 1959, or some other arbitrary date in the past"
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/11 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)
As Alanis would sing... Isn't it ironic ;-)
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/11 @ 04:05 PM — (Reply)
My stats are coming from the federal census records. You can skew the numbers by focusing on specific demographics (aged, minorities, single parent household, female led household, etc) or by focusing on children (since all families have at least one parent but can have more than one child) but if you look at the numbers of families - across the board - living below poverty, the rate has been relatively steady for 40 years (not 50 - I was working off my faulty memory).
Only in '82 and '83 did the numbers nudge just above 12% (BTW, those weren't Bush years) then again in '93 (*cough* That would be under CLINTON)
FYI: I went with the "family" numbers because the numerical value of the poverty line does not account for mitigating factors wrt the aged for example. My parents income has significantly decreased but they have no mortgage. Single people may make less but don't feel the burden of buying diapers and baby formula or paying for private school ;-).
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/11 @ 04:02 PM — (Reply)
Education should be revamped. Every school gets equal dollars per student. Every kid gets real education.
I'd like to see that happen for 20 years and see where the country is then. Rehasing of past history and finger pointing etc fixes nothing.
Knowlege and the ability to learn is power. Let's make it universally available equitably and see what happens.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/04/11 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
The statistics I used were from the Census as well, so don't blather about 'ironic'- I wanted to be as unbiased as reasonable. The article was from a think-tank, but not my numbers. I did concede that most of the success on the "war" occured in the first decade- that progress stagnated after the initial push, but I don't think there can be a lot of argument that the initial push did have measurable affect. Since that point, only marginal differences in the official rate, and like you've said, Barry, a lot of energy could be wasted on which statistics are more 'correct.'
The problem with your method, Barry, is that there will always be private schools. Whether to provide faith-based education, or to cater to the elitist crowd, or focusing on a specific ethnicity/area of study/special needs/whatever. I'm not saying that I'm against the theory, but implementing it would be the challenge. And however you implement it, you are realloting one person's wealth to another person's need. The inner city schools suck because they don't have the money that rich suburbs do. Are there other reasons? Sure. But take any significantly large sampling of school districts, and you will unquestionably find a direct correlation between amount of public financing for the school, and the quality of the schooling provided.
How to solve that without resorting to a redistribution of wealth that seems anethma to Cate?
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/12 @ 09:32 AM — (Reply)
I was a school teacher. Funds are irrelevant. Let me assure you. Furthermore, my children get substantially less "funding" than their state schooled counterparts and they are testing well above grade level across the board. Funding = good education = horsepuckey.
Dedicated teachers+interested parents= good education.
Here's my biggest problem with welfare - it's a handout. When it becomes a hand up, then I don't mind some redistribution. I've stood behind people in the grocery store wearing name brand clothes and buying steak with an EBT card while the hard working, overtaxed people behind them in line are buying mac and cheese and dressed a la WalMart. That's not right. There is absolutely no accountability in the system - often people stay in poverty because they make bad financial decisions (steak and MadDog - oh yeah, don't forget the 17 lottery tickets). Why should I pay for such idiocy? If you've never seen this in your local grocery then let me assure you that you are too far removed from the problem to properly analyze it.
The Mormon church has an excellent welfare system in place which functions amazingly and surpasses the needs of the church members allowing for worldwide humanitarian service. To my understanding, the basic idea is that the program is to be used to maintain life - not lifestyle. in other words, if people need help then they had better turn off the non-essentials (cable, internet) and consider selling the RV. Further, people put into the 'fund' knowing that the money is being used only for feeding and clothing the poor. No pork, no bridges to nowhere. People are usually assigned service to perform as reimbursement for the charity (cleaning churches, canning and packing food for others in need, etc) The church has an employment network that helps people prepare resumes and learn how to job search. Church members donate time and energy to dry pack grains and can fruits and vegetables. They donate time to unload the 18 wheelers when they arrive locally to deliver food to the needy.
And guess how much people generally donate to the welfare program... once a month the church members fast for 2 meals and donate the money they would have spent on food. No one is overburdened and no one receives charity without making some sacrifices of their own (if they can). Are people ever turned away? Yes. And I would venture to say that most church members would do everything possible to never have to ask for help.
I'm sure this system has flaws as well - no system is going to be perfect, but everything I've read about it impresses me. Apparently, the Libertarians like it as well.
Compare this with the federal system. Overpaid bureaucrats cutting checks for habitual loafers (I'm embarrassed to say I've known too many people like these to count - but that comes of growing up in a very poor area filled with people who curse 'the man' while cashing his checks monthly) who feel no inclination to pay back into the system and of whom no labor reimbursement is required.
It's the difference between true citizenship where people feel an obligation to the society (the LDS model) and the sense of entitlement of a spoiled child of overindulgent parents (federal model).
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/12 @ 11:30 AM — (Reply)
I've never said I was in favor of the current welfare system, or even prior incarnations. I was merely pointing out that the "War on Poverty" halved poverty rates, though that gain was made early on, and not much has changed since then.
Nor would I argue in the slightest that parental involvement is the single-most important element to good education. Dedicated teachers are almost as vital, I'll agree fully there too. No, money does not equal good education, but at the same time, it's hardly an irrelevant factor.
You were a school teacher. So tell me, what might motivate you to apply your skills in an otherwise less-desirable school? If a larger paycheck isn't at least somewhere on your list of motivations, then you are more generous than most. Or tell me how to give students in public schools the same personalized attention you give your own children, when the ratio of students to teachers is high? Am I being too absurd and simplistic in suggesting that hiring another teacher might help?
Frankly, if you want my personal opinion on both questions, I simply don't feel that either should be dealt with on a federal level. The larger the scheme, the more corruption, mismanagement and bureaucratic it becomes.
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/12 @ 01:23 PM — (Reply)
Lowering class size is a profound motivator. Would you like to keep your pay and work half as hard?
Raising pay but maintaining class size is nice but still doesn't slow the burnout rate.
Also - money does not translate to teacher pay. We've discussed the rampant waste in the past and I know we agree there are more ways to cut back than either of us could possibly enumerate here. (How did we educate our children before high schools had lighted marquees out front announcing the football schedule and the senior trip?)
But those are the problems.
As for solutions, I would start by reallocating the current funding to allow for more teachers (smaller class size). That would do wonders. Teachers (like all humans) are much more able to connect with individuals than with large groups and the level to which you are invested in each child's success is directly related to the pesonal relationship you have with him/her.
Smaller class size might lead to: reduction in behavior problems, fewer required support personnel (less need to pull kids out of class for special help programs), more parent involvement (teachers have fewer students - hence fewer parents to deal with each gets more time)...
The 3 day all-expense paid conferences to some convention center on the coast: Cancelled.
The photocopying of everything that will fit on a Xerox machine: Done! (Do you remember when we actually copied problems off the board?)
The 16 acre campus and the two story foyer with marble and glass wall leading into the main office: Gone.
Just for starters...
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/12 @ 02:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/04/12 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/13 @ 04:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/04/13 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/10 @ 04:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/11 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/12 @ 09:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/12 @ 10:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/12 @ 12:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/12 @ 10:55 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/12 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/13 @ 06:19 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/13 @ 08:03 AM — (Reply)