RE: What If? Jesus' Words Conflict With Our Deeds
Tony's premise is so very true. And for evidence, he need look no further than himself.
Jesus told us that the nations of the world will be judged by how well they respond to the needs of the poor. Yet even though many individual U.S. Christians are generous, our government gives away less than two-tenths of one percent of our gross national product to help the poor nations of the world.
Chapter and verse, Tony? Christ only rarely addressed himself to nations and then only obliquely. You see, Tony, the teachings of Jesus are not about what Tony decides they are or any other Marxist revisionist thinks they are, but instead they are about what he says in scripture. Christ didn't preach and teach to nations and societies, his words were intended for individuals.
Indeed, over and over again, Christ told us that each of us would be judged by our charity and kindness to our brother. The best illustration of that would be in the story of Lazarus, the beggar in Luke 16. Jesus never, ever taught that it was acceptable to force charity on anyone by confiscating from one person to give to another. In fact he issues a pretty strong compunction against such behavior in Matthew:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Nevertheless, most Christians readily support the death penalty.
This is a tough one for Christians. Of course Tony is hyperbolizing here, since "most" Christians definitely have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It is not for us to decide whether a man may live or die, but do we allow a monster to rampage among us? Of course, for Tony, who doesn't operate in a plane of reality with the rest of us, glib generalizations are easier than facing the issue.
Suppose Jesus' words had been the foundation of our policy in Iraq over the past 10 years, instead of an embargo that contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children.
Now Tony begins to expose his underlying nature. Apparently he is from the Michael Moore school of evangelism. I wonder if Tony remembers that Christ taught that a little part of our souls die every time we tell a lie. I also find myself wondering whether Tony would actually participate in the inevitable result of the policy he suggests: martyrdom. I suspect old Tony would be hiding somewhere, urging everyone else to jump into the jaws of the beast while he stays safely out of reach.
Or leave the government out of it: What if U.S. churches had marshaled their vast resources and sent the needed food and medicine to the children of Iraq, in defiance of our government's orders? Might we have undermined the propaganda and authority of Saddam Hussein?
The Bible says that such actions of love and compassion would have heaped coals of fire on his head. We even might have brought Hussein down.
What if, Tony? I think what Tony suggests would have been a very good idea. I think it is possible that it would have had the effect Tony describes. But is that why we follow Christ's teachings on charity, peacemaking, and love of our enemies? According to Tony, we do it so our enemies will suffer. Tony runs alongside the path, but he is just slightly off the path. The whole context for the scripture Tony refers to is this, from Romans:
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
So from this, we see that Tony is using hyperbole once again. The context is that we must love our enemies and leave it to God to do the heaping of coals. Tony misses the point of Christian charity in this section of his harangue. He would seek to use charity as a weapon and that makes him no better than those who pick up a sword.
What is most troubling is that the people who talk about Jesus the most are the ones who seem most willing to abandon his teachings and choose a politics of pragmatism.
I agree, Tony, have you looked in a mirror lately? Or better yet, have you paid attention to one of the most famous of Christ's teachings?
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
They are the ones who claim that the ideals outlined in the Sermon on the Mount just will not work in the "real world."
I'm not sure what Tony is talking about here. I have never heard any Christian make this assertion. I'm wondering if he just threw this in here because it sounded nice. In any case, by all means, Tony, go right ahead. Lead by example.
On a related irony, it is interesting to note that Tony didn't quote any scripture directly. In my (long) experience, this is usually a case of someone who wants to propagandize with scripture. The unfortunate thing for people who try this is that scripture doesn't lend itself well to being used for propaganda purposes. It tends to lead to unintended consequences. For example, Tony obliquely referred to a passage in Paul's epistle to the Romans. Now Tony didn't directly refer to the subject of sins of the flesh, but given his rhetoric, it is a pretty safe assumption that he is a liberal Christian. That might be an oxymoron, but that discussion would take up more space than we have on the blog. The Roman letter contains some of Paul's most strident preaching on the subject of flesh and lust. For example, the first chapter of Romans contains language on homosexuality that is second only to the story of the destruction of Sodom in its strength and repudiation of this repugnant sin. Yet most "tolerant" Christians of Tony's mold want to pretend the letter doesn't exist or that Paul had somehow left the reservation for just that part of his letter.
If you're going to preach on following the teachings of Christ, that means you must preach all of his teachings and not just the ones that make you comfortable. And that doesn't mean you distill scripture into your very own Marxist harangue. Are you listening, Tony?
Jesus told us that the nations of the world will be judged by how well they respond to the needs of the poor. Yet even though many individual U.S. Christians are generous, our government gives away less than two-tenths of one percent of our gross national product to help the poor nations of the world.
Chapter and verse, Tony? Christ only rarely addressed himself to nations and then only obliquely. You see, Tony, the teachings of Jesus are not about what Tony decides they are or any other Marxist revisionist thinks they are, but instead they are about what he says in scripture. Christ didn't preach and teach to nations and societies, his words were intended for individuals.
Indeed, over and over again, Christ told us that each of us would be judged by our charity and kindness to our brother. The best illustration of that would be in the story of Lazarus, the beggar in Luke 16. Jesus never, ever taught that it was acceptable to force charity on anyone by confiscating from one person to give to another. In fact he issues a pretty strong compunction against such behavior in Matthew:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Nevertheless, most Christians readily support the death penalty.
This is a tough one for Christians. Of course Tony is hyperbolizing here, since "most" Christians definitely have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It is not for us to decide whether a man may live or die, but do we allow a monster to rampage among us? Of course, for Tony, who doesn't operate in a plane of reality with the rest of us, glib generalizations are easier than facing the issue.
Suppose Jesus' words had been the foundation of our policy in Iraq over the past 10 years, instead of an embargo that contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children.
Now Tony begins to expose his underlying nature. Apparently he is from the Michael Moore school of evangelism. I wonder if Tony remembers that Christ taught that a little part of our souls die every time we tell a lie. I also find myself wondering whether Tony would actually participate in the inevitable result of the policy he suggests: martyrdom. I suspect old Tony would be hiding somewhere, urging everyone else to jump into the jaws of the beast while he stays safely out of reach.
Or leave the government out of it: What if U.S. churches had marshaled their vast resources and sent the needed food and medicine to the children of Iraq, in defiance of our government's orders? Might we have undermined the propaganda and authority of Saddam Hussein?
The Bible says that such actions of love and compassion would have heaped coals of fire on his head. We even might have brought Hussein down.
What if, Tony? I think what Tony suggests would have been a very good idea. I think it is possible that it would have had the effect Tony describes. But is that why we follow Christ's teachings on charity, peacemaking, and love of our enemies? According to Tony, we do it so our enemies will suffer. Tony runs alongside the path, but he is just slightly off the path. The whole context for the scripture Tony refers to is this, from Romans:
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."
So from this, we see that Tony is using hyperbole once again. The context is that we must love our enemies and leave it to God to do the heaping of coals. Tony misses the point of Christian charity in this section of his harangue. He would seek to use charity as a weapon and that makes him no better than those who pick up a sword.
What is most troubling is that the people who talk about Jesus the most are the ones who seem most willing to abandon his teachings and choose a politics of pragmatism.
I agree, Tony, have you looked in a mirror lately? Or better yet, have you paid attention to one of the most famous of Christ's teachings?
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
They are the ones who claim that the ideals outlined in the Sermon on the Mount just will not work in the "real world."
I'm not sure what Tony is talking about here. I have never heard any Christian make this assertion. I'm wondering if he just threw this in here because it sounded nice. In any case, by all means, Tony, go right ahead. Lead by example.
On a related irony, it is interesting to note that Tony didn't quote any scripture directly. In my (long) experience, this is usually a case of someone who wants to propagandize with scripture. The unfortunate thing for people who try this is that scripture doesn't lend itself well to being used for propaganda purposes. It tends to lead to unintended consequences. For example, Tony obliquely referred to a passage in Paul's epistle to the Romans. Now Tony didn't directly refer to the subject of sins of the flesh, but given his rhetoric, it is a pretty safe assumption that he is a liberal Christian. That might be an oxymoron, but that discussion would take up more space than we have on the blog. The Roman letter contains some of Paul's most strident preaching on the subject of flesh and lust. For example, the first chapter of Romans contains language on homosexuality that is second only to the story of the destruction of Sodom in its strength and repudiation of this repugnant sin. Yet most "tolerant" Christians of Tony's mold want to pretend the letter doesn't exist or that Paul had somehow left the reservation for just that part of his letter.
If you're going to preach on following the teachings of Christ, that means you must preach all of his teachings and not just the ones that make you comfortable. And that doesn't mean you distill scripture into your very own Marxist harangue. Are you listening, Tony?
posted by Anonymous | 10:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home