Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LethalWolfe, Jan 26, 2008.
A blow back against the Falwells and Phelps of the world?
Interestingly, one of my most liberal friends is also very Christian. If you strip it all down to the very basics, the teachings of Christ are pretty liberal. I think it's fairly American for Christians to be strongly conservative.
Blue Like Jazz was a life-changing book for me. When I went into it, I expected to be disappointed not because of its "liberalism" but because I expected it to be chock full of typical feel-good American Christian religion of felt-needs theology. Instead, it was a gripping account of one man's thoughts on faith that transcended politics, felt needs, and the idea that nothing done "in Christ's name" could be bad.
When I read Blue Like Jazz, I was a pissed off liberal Christian college student. Reading it helped me to understand how little of the stuff that I was concerned about as a "liberal" truly matters. I learned how much more important it is for me to be Christ's ambassador to those around me than it is to get upset because the Religious Right has co-opted religion for its narrow purposes (and alienated scores of millions in the process). I'm still not happy about those things and I still place high importance on trying to change the minds of those around me, but rather than feeling angry about it, I just try to change the injustices.
But does Christ really need an ambassador? The problem is that his followers speak more loudly than his actions, when it's the reverse that should be true.
He probably gives out ambassadorships to the biggest donors. It was ever thus.
There are a lot of Christians who miss the point of Christ-centered evangelism. It's not about notches on the bedpost (so to speak). We are to make disciples of all the nations, but we are not to do so in an ungodly way. Throughout the Bible it is clear that God can work good things out of the sinful things that his followers do, but it is equally clear that this does not mean that his followers will be rewarded for these sins. I could go on for quite a long time about how too many Christians have an evangelistic theology in which any means is justified to the end of evangelizing, but I don't support that. The strongest witness is to lead quiet lives*, as Paul instructed us. Interest can and will follow. I have had MORE opportunities to talk to people about my faith since I gave up trying to work it in to conversations.
*Of course, there are those who are called to evangelize; Paul himsef certainly did not lead what most would consider a "quiet" life, but he did God's work in doing so. Some today are called to evangelize in a more public manner as well.
You and your fellow evangelists believe you have the right to bother other people and infringe on their rights. You do not. You can wave the bible as if that was some proof that all should acknowledge as definitive. It is not.
Your beliefs are just that, "yours". Not mine. Christian evangelists look to predate people during vulnerable times in their life. It is like a dingle dog spotting the limping wildebeest.
Dude, I think yer jumping down Daveman's throat for no reason. Did you get the part of his post where he says he doesn't support Christians who try to brow beat others w/the Bible?
I think so too. SMM- I think you interpreted his post incorrectly. And hey- don't feel too bad, even though I never do things like that.
good to hear a christian from a left point of view speak out against the extremist fundamentalists. the religious right thinks that being liberal and a christian is a myth that doesn't exist. they also have a very narrow (and warped) view of who a christian is, and those who don't fit exactly with those beliefs is 'a secular devil-worshipping activist'. many of these types flaunt their christianity as a means to obtain power and boasting of being holier than thou and are obsessed with sex (gays, abortion, etc). they also have a big persecution complex where they think they are the most attacked group in america (perhaps fascist obsessed fundamentalists). wasn't these the type of people jesus didn't associate with in his life? i read a book about a year ago that said that those who force their faith unto others (like many of the religious right do) makes it look less legitimate as they have to resort to propaganda like methods to make them faithful.
i got sick of tbn and the religious right a few years ago, after exposing myself to (gasp) other views that weren't full of hate. this is why they hate college, because it gives young people other ideals besides the 'us vs. them' bubble ideals many were taught growing up. i really believe that the religious right is giving all christians a bad name due to their love of hate and love to divide. that's also why i'm not voting for a religious right endorsed candidate.
Looks like a reality check...
I like the point he raises - one of things I find unfortunate is that a lot of religions preach fellowship and and so forth between themselves and people outside their religious community in principle, but in the real world this behavior is heavily conditional. I like the notion (aspired to in theory by so many religions) that we behave charitably towards others first, and everything else comes afterwards. No so in the real world, all too often.
His posts state he distances himself from the more extreme elements of christian evangelism; "........too many Christians have an evangelistic theology in which any means is justified to the end of evangelizing, but I don't support that."
What I wrote was focused solely on evangelism, in and of itself. It was not directly aimed at him personally. In re-reading it, I can see how you (at least) might view it that way. Sorry for the confusion.