America and Christianity

[Bravus]

I wasn't sure whether this belonged in World Affairs (aka the American Foreign Policy Forum <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) or here, but it's about both politics and Christianity, so...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/born-again-in-the-usa/2006/04/14/1144521509728.html

(and it's not just for America: it points just as strongly at Canada and Australia. it's about remembering what Jesus actually said.)

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

from the article:

Here is a statistic that does matter: 75 per cent of Americans believe the Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves. That is, three out of four Americans believe that this notion, at the core of American politics and culture and which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, appears in Holy Scripture.

And Franklin's homily is counterbiblical.

Few notions could be further from its radical summons to love they neighbour.

On this essential matter, most American Christians are simply wrong; it's as if 75 per cent of American scientists believed that Isaac Newton proved that gravity caused apples to ascend.

---

This specific item has been something laid hard upon my heart both in thought and in my own experience. Namely the tremendous inroads the dogmas of "rugged individualism" and social Darwinism have made into the average Western mind's unconscious eisegesis of Scripture. It goes beyond this appalling statistic -- that 75% of Americans believe the notions themselves are taught in Scripture -- and into an even more alarming "danger zone" of having at least this 75% and quite possibly more unconsciously reading these notions into Scripture in the very moments their minds are processing Scripture read (or preached, or otherwise heard).

A potent strain of this viral invasion even informs the thrumming undercurrent of our own beloved SDA thought, particularly in areas of soteriological consideration. It is time to comprehend these lies for what they are and weed them out of the garden of our understanding of salvation and the sacred.

These notions include a large portion of what is mistakenly considered (and thus erroneously labeled) "tough love" today, which is in truth nothing more than a veneer of "teaching responsibility" laid over an underground faultline of core selfishness and self-absorbed "expedience". We don't want to take the TIME it requires to really know people and really minister to them, so we dump platitudes, wag a finger, and run away -- and then exonerate ourselves at the expense of the suffering and the struggling when our lofty pronouncements fail to liberate them from their captivities and torments. "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" is not just sorry advice doled out; it is the unspoken expectational subtext that poisons the air of our exchanges with one another, the smeary thumbprints all over the currency of our conversation. Beneath it all can be heard the resounding refrain of Cain as he turned his back on the stiffening body and running blood of his brother: "I am not my brother's keeper!"

God help us all.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Twelve per cent believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laughhard.gif" alt="" />

[aldona]

I've just read that same article. It's about time someone published something like this. (And yes, it applies to all rich "Christian" nations such as Australia, Canada, UK etc.)

I've printed out a copy of the article and bits of it will be surfacing in future church bulletins.

aldona

[Nan]

On a related topic, yesterday I saw a TV interview of an American author who has written on politics and religion - something along the lines of 'what the religious right has wrong and what the religious left does not get' - wondering why Jesus has to be perceived as a prosperous American, and emphasizing the need to deal with the issues of poverty and social deprivation. The announcer leading into the interview mentioned that religion could become an integral part of politics over the next 10 years.

I have no questions that the issues need to be dealt with - and also that the potential repercussions could be labelled 'interesting', given the SDA world view.

[Nicodema]

Nan, that would have to be the one and only Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. I have his book and have read some (but not all) of it.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

What if we chose some simple criterion, say, giving aid to the poorest people, as a reasonable example of Christian behaviour? In 2004, the US ranked second last among developed countries in government foreign aid

---

OPM (Other People's Money) Was Jesus saying that we should raise taxes to help the poor OR take money out of our own pockets to feed the poor? Traditional liberals (in favor of big government) favor using tax money to feed the poor. Traditional conservatives (in favor of small government) favor using private money to feed the poor. These are two different philosophies and doesn't make one group more or less Christian.

Conservtives tend to believe that when the government gives our assitance those in the private sector feel less inclined to give themselves so the use of tax money decreases the amount given to private charities.

Quote:

---

nearly 18 per cent of American children live in poverty (compared with 8 per cent in Sweden)

---

Poverty is a realitive term. Many of America's poverty have free health care, a car, a television, a microwave, carpet, air conditioning, free education, and the food stamps they recieve are not included when their income is figured.

Quote:

---

Having been told to turn the other cheek, the US is the only Western democracy that executes its citizens

---

This makes the author sound like he needs a lesson in Christianity. Christ instruction to turn the other cheek was not a directive to the civil government in how it should handle criminals. God Himself endorsed the death penalty in the theocracy of Israel.

Quote:

---

It's just that the authors of these creeds, in presenting their sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus' radical and demanding focus on others.

---

Again, the other shows his own need of a lesson in Christianity. I read a lot from nonAdventist authors and the focus is on others and God. Christianity is not pop psyc, self-helpism.

Quote:

---

One day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had reduced their carbon emissions

---

Ok, now the guy is really painting himself as a wacko. He is showing his or her stripes. We are now to measure our commitment to God by our carbon emissions?

The problem with the author is he has a template in his mind of what type of government a Christian should support. He doesn't grasp that even Christians can disagree on types of government and still be Christian.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

OPM (Other People's Money) Was Jesus saying that we should raise taxes to help the poor OR take money out of our own pockets to feed the poor? Traditional liberals (in favor of big government) favor using tax money to feed the poor. Traditional conservatives (in favor of small government) favor using private money to feed the poor. These are two different philosophies and doesn't make one group more or less Christian.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But that's the other point he makes: American Christians (and those in other western countries) simply *do not* (factually) give a lot of money to help others. If the belief in low taxes was closely linkied with a huge commitment to individual giving, that would be one thing, but in practice it clearly is not. Difference between what we say and what we do.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

OPM (Other People's Money) Was Jesus saying that we should raise taxes to help the poor OR take money out of our own pockets to feed the poor? Traditional liberals (in favor of big government) favor using tax money to feed the poor. Traditional conservatives (in favor of small government) favor using private money to feed the poor. These are two different philosophies and doesn't make one group more or less Christian.

---

Holy rose colored glasses, Shane...I haven't even read the article, and I already can see that you refuse to truely see what the article is realy about... You HAVE GOT to take off those REPUBLICAN glasses that define everything liberal as bad, and everything conservative/republican as good.

Holy moly, that post of yours was truely an eye opener into your bent and twisted soul....

May I suggest that you ask youreself what the Democrates say regarding taxes....And why don't you quote the democratic platform when it comes to taxes and other issues instead of spouting off YOUR interpretation of what you THINK they are standing for....

On second thought, never mind... this was a wasted post...

folks,...

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Nicodema said:

Nan, that would have to be the one and only Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. I have his book and have read some (but not all) of it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes Nico, that is the book - and by implication that must be the author <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

Having been told to turn the other cheek, the US is the only Western democracy that executes its citizens

---

Christ instruction to turn the other cheek was not a directive to the civil government in how it should handle criminals. God Himself endorsed the death penalty in the theocracy of Israel.

---

If what you state is true then our Government is failing to follow God's endorsement of death. Please remember what Paul said concerning the justice of the law:

• “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Gal 3:10

Numbers 15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.”

Deut 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Lev 20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 ”‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

You HAVE GOT to take off those REPUBLICAN glasses that define everything liberal as bad, and everything conservative/republican as good.

---

Notice I don't take the position that liberal is bad or conservative is good.

Quote:

---

These are two different philosophies and doesn't make one group more or less Christian.

---

[Dr. Shane]

When the government takes a person's money to help the poor, that person isn't going to feel as compelled to give even more money to further help the poor. So, the conservative aurguement is that entitlement programs have the effect of reducing charitable contributions.

I am very much a moderate in this area. I am sympathetic to the conservative position. I see a lot of mismanagment in the entitlement programs that have prolonged poverty for many that have gotten stuck in the system. Then too, I see that in the past a kid born in poverty had practically no chance of getting a college degree and a high chance of suffering from malnutrition. So I favor entitlement programs in a simular way that I favor the war in Iraq - the intentions are good but there has been a lot of mismanagement.

Some conservatives will actually accuse liberals that claim to do a Christian work with tax dollars of stealing and thus violating God's law. They will point out that giving money to help the poor is commendable but stealing another man's money to help the poor is dipicable.

There is more one way to look at it. Low taxes is one of the things that keeps the cost of goods and services low which makes them more affordable for the poor. In the US one can buy a new refigerator for $300, a new microwave for $40, a small air conditionor for $85, a color TV for $50, a DVD player for $35, a radio/CD player for $30 and gasoline is cheaper than most places on the planet.

[Dr. Shane]

Just because God endorsed the death penalty in His theocracy doesn't mean that civil governments need to use it today. The point I am making is that the fact God used it does show that God doesn't oppose it.

I am not a big proponant of the death penalty. I don't think it should ever be given without DNA evidence or two eye witnesses. However I favor hard labor instead of the death penalty. BUT I am not going to use the Bible and claim God is against the death penalty. Using "turn the other cheek" as a prohibition of the death penaty is the same as saying we should let rapists rape us 7x70 times - it is taken completely out of context.

[Neil D]

Ok, I have read the article and I would like to post a few thoughts, so that if anything, Shane can have a shot at me...

What I saw in this artlcle is a clearer picture of a connudrum of two Christianitys...There's the Christianity that lives by the creedo- The individual Christianity that strives to better yourself, and obtain wealth. And there's a communial Christianity that demands your money to help your neighbor when he has fallen on bad times.

And, this is for Shane's benefit, one seems more republican in it's views and the other more democratic in it's views...

What I would like to point out is that the word "seems" is the operative word here. Because while Christ is known to have urge the loving the neighbor as ourselves, there is equal commitment to love both the neighbor and ourselves...all this while being yourself.

I have a cousin, who screwed up his life pretty good when he was young...on drugs, got married too young, got divorce, and repeated this senerio 3 times, and manage to produce 2 boys out of this carnage...Now the last marriage, he was committed to...only she got dissatisfied and started playing around. He left...justifiably so..

Justifably he has grounds to divorce......He asked for counciling, and while she says yes, she refuses to go....He says that there is a mental problem. She has a boyfriend, and has taken him into her house....He says he's tired of fighting...and it's time to move on.

question: At what point does justification excuse commitment?

The same can be said of our churches...At what point does justification excuse commitment?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Notice I don't take the position that liberal is bad or conservative is good.

---

Ok, perhaps I did mispeak and use the 'good/bad' lable..but you did say this-

Quote:

---

Traditional liberals (in favor of big government) favor using tax money to feed the poor. Traditional conservatives (in favor of small government) favor using private money to feed the poor.

---

This is simply not true. It is a republican interpretation of democratic values. And I don't know any republican interpretation that isn't slaming some democratic principles as 'bad'.

[Dr. Shane]

Liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government. In general, that is the accepted difinition of a liberals and conservatives. However in regard to some issues, like abortion, it may be exactly the opposite. Once we put socialists and libertarians into the mix it gets even more complicated. But as far as keeping it generally simple, liberals are for high taxes and big government while conservatives are for low taxes and small government.

The author of this article takes the position that if America was really Christian it would have a bigger government that not only offered more services to its own citizens but gave more money to forgien countries. He doesn't take into account that the conservative view can also fit into Christian theology.

[Nicodema]

I didn't see this article as discussing politics at all, but moral choices and moral responsibilities. Can you point me to anywhere in the article where the author advocates bigger government and higher taxes? I didn't see that at all. What I saw was a comparison of ideologies. Granted, these ideologies may be USED to formulate and/or justify political policies by those so inclined, but to equate practical concern for the poor expressing itself in tangible deeds and actions with "favoring big gov't and higher taxes" is to wrongly politicize the issues, in my view, and detract from the true focus of the article, which is the replacement of the actual Gospel with a socio-politically "sanitized" version catering to certain political and social interests and groups. A dangerous practice if you ask me, claiming allegiance to Jesus Christ while disregarding His actual teachings.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

"I am not my brother's keeper!"

God help us all.

---

This to give an to Aldona's inclusion of the article for certain church bulletins. Also to Nicodema. The idea that America is God's ideal for Christian living is to completely ignore our own ignorance of His Word.

While percentages are not within my own knowledge, it does appear that "many" would be a good term to use re: where God's people might be in their journey to heaven.

[:"red"] "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." [/] Revelation 18:2-5 KJV

Bold mine LHC

And I suppose the richest of the nations would not be excluded, as I've heard there is at least one Holy Bible in most homes, at least before the influx of the many of every faith within the last 75 years

[Ron Griffith]

I'm not as sure as the author of that article that personal responsibility is so evil, and the solution is to hand out money to the poor and less motivated.

Haven't we had enough experience in this last century to show otherwise?

It is also hard to determine where the author got his statistics. I suspect that it is his political beliefs and pigeon holing of Evangelical Christians that leads him to this diatribe. He paints with a pretty broad brush. Unless he interviewed me he knows nothing about how I give and to whom I give. Much less if I support the death penalty, abortion, or Krispy Kreme donuts at church.

We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss personal involvement in where we direct our money. There is a place for educational assistance, food stamps, housing subsidies, and healthcare funding. I just don't believe that signing a check and giving it to the government or an aid agency is an indicator of how Christian someone is. Neither is your tax rate.

Bah. He’s just another Socialist/Liberal looking down his snobbish nose at Conservative Americans. I am a registered Democrat (the horror) and even I am offended by his obvious caricatures.

[bonnie]

Motivation and personal responsibility are not terms for a terminal illness to be avoided at all costs. If fact they are words with meanings spelled out throughout scripture one way or another, alongside the words to help amd to give freely. As Ron has stated I see nothing biblical about the enforced governmental giving that so many of you would apparantly like to see.

Taxes are necessary to run a country, taxes that gouge those that can pay to support those that refuse to work, to support those that just want more laws passed to enact more taxes to gouge is not. Please notice I said those that refuse to work, not those that cannot work, or those that first need the helping hand up. Some years ago , only .28 of every dollar for welfare actually went to the welfare receipient in MN. The rest went to administrative cost. This may be responsibile giving and spending to some of you, but it is not the way I do my math. To compound matters. many of the welfare receipients were able bodied and could work and support themselves as they did find out when the welfare reform act went into effect. And NO, before some of you blow off about them working at Mac Donald's without benefits, that is not what happened.

Ron and I seem to be on opposite sides of the political pole here, but I grew up with very liberal minded conservative parents always willing to help, TO A POINT. Then they believed in the biblical wisdom of "idle hands are the devil's workshop" It was not all that uncommon for me to come home from a date and to find myself having to step over a strange body in a sleeping bag on the living room floor. It has always been a mystry to me how my parents seem to attract or find so many homeless people when no one else seemed to. When I was much younger we lived by a very busy railroad tracks. Ours became the jumping off point at supper time for several of the bums who rode the rails. Word traveled that there would always be something to eat there.

My dad at one time had been one of them and had rode the "rails" and on Fri evenings daddy would make his famous "hobo" stew and feed them.

When the immediate needs were met ,with a chance to rest, they were expected to expose themselves to that dreaded twin terminal illness of motivation and personal responsibility. Not look for the next hand out.

Every miracle performed by Christ in the bible IMO backs this up in one way or another. Something, no matter how small or insignificent it may seem to us compared to the miracle performed is required of the receipient.

What is not alluded to or said in any way is the command or suggestion to sit there and avoid motivation and personal responsibility for your new beginning. No allowences for your dysfunctional upbringing, your abusive parents, growing up on welfare mentality etc.

The leper who asked Christ to heal him if Christ were willing. After he was healed, he had something he was required to do. No using as an excuse his background which must have included a lot of shunning as a leper. Go and make an offering (be an example) as a testimony to them....

The paralytic, was also told to do something. Small and insignificent. Might be equivalent to a homeless house guest being told to make up his bed and clean up after himself. I often wonder if the paralytic had said to Christ.... You know I can't walk, you pick up my bed and help me up. Lead me to my house . Make sure I get there. After all, I have been crippled all this time, what is it you expect from me? This is pretty much what a lot of those that feel they are not receiving enough aid say, or those that feel we are not giving enough tell us is the problem.

Feeding five thousand with five loaves of bread and two fish was no small task. Christ could have placed food in front of each person with a wave of his hand. The disciples had to participate if I remember right.

Wedding feast of Cana, someone had to bring him the containers. They had to participate in what was being done for them. They could not just sit there and tell Christ to do it for them.

The woman who reached out and touched the hem of his garment. Christ knew she was there, she first had to actively participate in her own healing. It may seem a small act, but it was a step she was willing to take, not just sit somewhere and wait for Christ to heal her. She had to act on her faith.

If scholastic ignorance, mental and physical abuse, poverty, grinding poverty were the reasons for our problems we have today, the generation following the freeing of the slaves, the generation that endured the depression, and the Jewish generation following WW2 should have given us some of the most depraved, irresponsible,worthless human beings to date. It did not.

Study a bit of the history of each of the three generations. Their resilience, their faith, their endurence, their work ethic is remarkable and astounding.

Hunger, fear, and the effects of deprivation are the same no matter which generation endures it. Difference is...... What????.

I wonder sometimes how many on this forum have first hand experience with some of what they have such strong opinions about.

How many have been truly hungry?? Not hungry in the sense of not having your choice of food, but truly , truly hungry?

Not your parents or grandparents experience, but your experience.Where did your strong opinions form??

How many of you have been really, really cold??? Cold in your homes because you could not afford heatin the winter????

How many of you have been really, really frightened? Not the little bit scared of how will I pay the electric bill, but really frightened of, "will I ever see my family again???

Are any of you speaking first hand experience, or arm chair experience??

Governemnt can be the problem, and each of you can be the solution to the questions above. So many of you would rather turn it over to the government and their solutions which most of the time compond the problem. Especially as it is used to alliviate the conscience of so many "christians" liberal and conservative alike.

[Bravus]

part of the problem is that we would prefer to arge about politics than to help someone in need. I'm going to go away for a while now and try to do more of the latter and less of the former.

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

part of the problem is that we would prefer to arge about politics than to help someone in need. I'm going to go away for a while now and try to do more of the latter and less of the former.

---

I am not arguing politics, at least not in the typical sense.

I don't care what your politics are. Governement is not an efficient use of finances when it comes to helping someone in most cases. And most have little first hand knowledge of what it is like to be cold, hungry and to frightened to move. Yet, they have so very many answers and they all spell more and more government. Yet at the same time they yell and yell about government intrusion into out lives. Personally I think for many it is more fun to argue about a political point than have to do anything. "After all, if someone is in need, the government is there to help. Isn't that what I voted for"? "I did my christian duty at the voting booth, I voted for ..... and I support......, What else can I do"?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government. In general, that is the accepted difinition of a liberals and conservatives.

---

Why can't liberals define liberals? Why can't the liberals define who they are? Why can't conservatives define conservatives?

Instead, we have conservatives defining who liberals are and vice versa. To do so, is to play into polical chaos. Eventually, no one is able to compromise and everyone is polarized because each side has "THE TRUTH" about itself and the other side.

This is something that you have projected every time you post, Shane. It is also why many don't take your political posts seriously. You have adopted the conservative agenda and thier definitions of thier opponents.

Why not believe that the Liberals can define themselves?

Oh, what's the use...you wont listen because you are, to quote another auther about another group of people, "stiff-necked"....

To the rest of the readers of this area,

[Gerr]

A case of self-flagellation! But many points well-taken.

While Americans may be among the lowest in per capita giving among contributing nations, America still gives more foreign aid than any nation on earth and perhaps all other nations combined!

Why can't we give more per capita? Because no one else spends more per capita to police the world than the USA!

And why do we live more richly than most of the world? Because we are spending now tomorrow's and the next generation's income! The US national debt now stands at 8.45 trillion dollars. Unless the morons in Washington do something about, I believe this will bring the USA down more than anything else.

Alabamans may be at the bottom among the states on almost everything, but I read recently that as for homeownership, they are either near or at the top of the list, if you can believe it.

As for crime being the highest in the most avowedly Christian country among western nations, let me ask you, is it being committed by the professing Christians?

You see, statistics can be somewhat deceiving. But the point is well taken that we Christians should put where our mouth is.

Gerry