'Do evangelicals' actions and belief match Jesus'?

[Bravus]

A bit of a counterpoint to some recent posts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html?view=print

[doug yowell]

Nothing biased or misrepresentative in that piece. Nosiree, nothing.Good thing we have socialism and Mr. Zuckerman to explain correctly how Jesus taught that Christians were to live,think,and vote. Self-absorbed,hypocritical,Jesus haters those evangelicals!!

[Bravus]

Feel free to show in detail how Zuckerman misrepresented what Jesus taught.

[Bravus]

Or what (as shown in the Pew study) American evangelicals believe.

[CoAspen]

Interesting opinion on the observable. Not that it's new, organized religion has often strayed from the teachings of Christ down through the century's.

[cardw]

Nothing biased or misrepresentative in that piece. Nosiree, nothing.Good thing we have socialism and Mr. Zuckerman to explain correctly how Jesus taught that Christians were to live,think,and vote. Self-absorbed,hypocritical,Jesus haters those evangelicals!!

[phkrause]

That article is pretty much right on Bravus, thanks for the link.

[doug yowell]

Thanks for posting my answer for me, Rich. The list of Zuckerman's claims pretty covers those areas in which he either misrepresents what most evangelicals believe or distorts what Jesus actually taught.Ya saved me the time it woulda taken me to address Bravus' question.

[doug yowell]

Yeah, I want to know exactly how did he misrepresent evangelicals considering the following quote from the article....

Zuckerman is either a blatant liar,a misinformed political pundit, a self righteous moralist, or a well meaning person who has forgotten the necessity of extending to evangelicals the same courtesy that he himself would demand in any disagreement.Anytime one stands as the author and finisher of another's faith when attached to their alleged political stands, they lose credibility. Since I'm somewhat familar with what Evangelicals actually teach and believe about Z's political issues I find his strawman caricature of them either ignorant or dishonest.

[lazarus]

Feel free to show in detail how Zuckerman misrepresented what Jesus taught.

[cardw]

Zuckerman is either a blatant liar,a misinformed political pundit, a self righteous moralist, or a well meaning person who has forgotten the necessity of extending to evangelicals the same courtesy that he himself would demand in any disagreement.Anytime one stands as the author and finisher of another's faith when attached to their alleged political stands, they lose credibility. Since I'm somewhat familar with what Evangelicals actually teach and believe about Z's political issues I find his strawman caricature of them either ignorant or dishonest.

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Where do you address specifically what he actually said? No where.

[doug yowell]

[blah, blah, blah, blah....

Where do you address specifically what he actually said? No where.

Where does Zuck back up his caricatures of Evangelical theology? Blah, blah, blah,blah?????? What's that?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

[blah, blah, blah, blah....

Where do you address specifically what he actually said? No where.

Where does Zuck back up his caricatures of Evangelical theology? Blah, blah, blah,blah?????? What's that?

[John317]

Feel free to show in detail how Zuckerman misrepresented what Jesus taught.

Zuckerman says:

Quote:

They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached.

What's the deal?

The deal is that Zuckerman is incorrect, if not lying. Jesus did not preach "socialism."

Socialism is not the essence of Christ's message.

Jesus didn't preach that His kingdom was of this world--- in fact, the contrary is true--- and therefore He didn't try to persuade people to make a change in human governments or rule.

Here is the article in wikipedia on "socialism," and I think anyone can see that it is not what Jesus preached:

Quote:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as calculation-in-kind, or a direct measure of labour time.[6][7] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit/individual contribution.[8]

Socialism is based on the government's ability and power to force its citizens to have public or common ownership of the production and allocation of property, goods, and services. Jesus taught nothing of these things. There's a big difference between people individually giving to others because of their free choice and the government dominating society to the point where it is able to take what belongs to its citizens for the purpose of distributing it to other people.

Jesus' teaching leads to greater, not less, individual human freedom.

I believe our American Republic is the kind of government God wants us to have in this country. According to prophecy, the day will come, probably fairly soon, when we will lose it, but that will not be of God's making.

[Bravus]

Nope. You've made the same move that is made all the time: jumping straight to centralised state socialism as though it's the only form. Given your extensive knowledge in the field, John317, I'm a little surprised at that.

What about the 'socialism' of the kibbutz? Or, most relevant of all, the early Christian church, where they held all their property in common.

Jesus, and the whole Bible, spends a huge amount of time talking about our responsibilities toward the poor, and evangelicals, in contrast, spend an enormous amount of time blaming the poor for their poverty and figuring out reasons not to help them.

Raise your sights a little from the propaganda, and *really* spend time looking at the match between the Son of Man who didn't own anything beyond the clothes he stood up in and those who claim to follow him but advocate the right of millionaires to hold onto their millions while others starve.

[Tom Wetmore]

Your last sentence reminds me of the chorus from one of my favorite songs, "You did not have a home" from the posthumous album, The Jesus Record of the late Rich Mullins - "the hope of the whole world rest on the shoulders of a homeless man".

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, this is the disconnect that I have previously railed against between the political/social views and what those same people claim as their religion.

I think that this also draws a very clear picture of what I believe Jesus was talking about as being the end-time distinction between his followers and the followers of the counterfeit in his "unto the least of these" judgment proclamation.

And I think it begins to zero in on a core misconception about that very prophetic mark of distinction that casts a dividing line in our thinking between us and them. What is described is the state of mind of the prevailing religion of the dark ages. I think that the distinguishing mark is what is corrupting Christianity today and will become more evident as the end nears. Those very virtues of Jesus' teaching and life will mark his true followers and their absence in the lives will mark all who are followers of a beastly impostor.

He stated it clearly and simply - "And they will know you are my followers by your love for others."

[cardw]

Yes, this is the disconnect that I have previously railed against between the political/social views and what those same people claim as their religion.

What's interesting is that Tony Campolo a confessed evangelical has done studies that show the same thing...

[John317]

But that's not "socialism." The Christians of the first centurty didn't practice socialism.

Acts 4: 32-37 was neither socialism nor communism, although the modern founders of socialism and communism took Acts 4: 32-37 as their ideal. But they turned the ideal on its head, because the ideal can only work under the movement of the Holy Spirit, whereas Marx et al intends for parties and states to force people (even at the point of a gun) to do what the Holy Spirit loving led people to do voluntarily.

Your idea also assumes that it would be God's will for everyone to do do what was done in Acts 4: 32-37, but that is not true. What we hav have in Acts 4 is a description of the way the early lived lived for a very short time, and it was never something that God's prophets ever again mentioned. Neither Paul nor John nor Peter nor Ellen White were given visions or dreams from God which indicated that He wanted the church to do what was done in Acts 4. God does not accept "giving" that is not done voluntarily and from the heart. This is not the kind of "giving" that is done under socialism.

Acts 4:32-37

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. [33] And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. [34] There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. [36] Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, [37] sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Ellen White wrote (1 MR 224) what God's plan is for the Seventh-day Adventist people and the church. Part of what she wrote says, "The work of providing for all the depraved, all the drunkards, and all the prostitutes, has not and never will be given by the Lord to Seventh-day Adventists."

The relieving of the poor is to be connected with the proclamation of the Three Angels Messages.

[Bravus]

If Ellen White makes that claim, then she makes it in the face of the Bible. Matthew 25, and a *mass* of other texts makes it very clear indeed that all believers are accountable for the way they treat those less fortunate. What was it Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for? What was it the prophets rebuked Israel for, as well as Sodom and Gommorah.

John317, my friend, you are examplifying exactly the attitudes the Zuckerman article is about.

Seek the Word.

[doug yowell]

Nope. You've made the same move that is made all the time: jumping straight to centralised state socialism as though it's the only form. Given your extensive knowledge in the field, John317, I'm a little surprised at that.

What's even more suprising is your ignoring Zuckerman's immediate connection of Jesus teaching(socialism) to the correct model of political bent that Evangelicals should be supporting if (as Z protests) they are really followers of Jesus. This is the same point that Tom makes in his preceding post. Phrase it any way you want but the exercise of "state socialism" is exactly the point upon which Tom and Zuckerman have voiced their judgments. If these political positions are excised from the equation I wonder how far the anti-Jesus charges would fly?

[John317]

Yes, this is the disconnect that I have previously railed against between the political/social views and what those same people claim as their religion.

Where's the disconnect? You seem to be talking about politics and parties and governments, but that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was talking about what individuals do, not what political views they hold or whether they support socialism or capitalism. Jesus' words are just as applicable to the individuals in any society under any form of government.

[Guest]

That's right John...

[John317]

If Ellen White makes that claim, then she makes it in the face of the Bible.

Are you sure you understand the claim?

Remember that she is describing the work of the SDA church. She is not talking about what you or I should do with our money or our time, if we choose to do that kind of work as individuals.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Matthew 25, and a *mass* of other texts makes it very clear indeed that all believers are accountable for the way they treat those less fortunate. What was it Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for? What was it the prophets rebuked Israel for, as well as Sodom and Gommorah.

John317, my friend, you are examplifying exactly the attitudes the Zuckerman article is about.

Seek the Word.

What the Bible talks about are individuals, not about the form of government they have or whether the state should be socialist or communist or capitalist.

Bravus, be careful about what you say of people who you know nothing about.

[Bravus]

How do I know nothing about them? I know the results of the Pew survey, and I talk to them every day right here.

Forget systems of government, that's an American obsession.

The question is how we treat others. And the bottom line is that Christians both treat others worse than unbelievers and actively proclaim that it is right to do so.

All I'm saying is what the Bible says.