If you read the teachings of Jesus and observe what the Gospels claim that he actually did, you must conclude that he lived a radical life. This conclusion appears especially evident when you stop to compare his lifestyle and expressed values with the ordinary, run of the mill U. S. Christian.
Luke 4:16ff reports on an early speech that Jesus delivered in the synagogue in his hometown. Many consider these words the basis of his first sermon. During that address, Jesus outlined his understanding of his personal mission in life. It is quite the litany, especially when compared to the apparent mission understandings of most churches and most church members these days.
Here's the mission statement Jesus shared with the crowd who gathered in the Nazareth house of prayer:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
I've been pondering during the past few days how the church has rewritten that mission statement in America. Here's what I believe is an accurate mission statement for many congregations in the mainstream church today and for typical members of such congregations:
"The requirements of common sense are forced upon me to bring a word of direction to the disaffected middle-class materialists among whom I live and with whom I identify so strongly. God has sent me to proclaim release to those imprisoned in unsatisfying relationships and held captive by basic negative self-images; to unlock the chains of self-imposed limits and open every eye to the possibilities bound up in a life lived to the full, to set free slaves to unrestrained debt by means of creative 'work outs' and to proclaim the year of infinite possibilities, especially for our children."
I'm certain that there are other ways to rewrite the mission. But this one will have to do for today.
There is a reason why most churches don't act as if they share Jesus' concern for the poor, the impoverished, the economically distressed, as in "po folks."
There is a reason why most churches don't reach out to the prisoners, those locked up in need of compassion, love, mercy and liberation.
There is a reason why the church is not positioned near the blind, and by implication the unhealthy, the uninsured and the cast offs of our culture.
There is a reason why most church members don't know what the "year of the Lord's favor" is all about; why they don't really know what the Year of Jubilee involved or why Jesus embraced it as his defining mandate for his entire life.
It's all about mission and self-understanding; purpose and reason to exist.
Of course, there are exceptions to my critique. You easily can prove up the fact that your church falls into the exceptional category. Just check this year's budget.
.
31 comments:
I blame Plato and Descartes. If they hadn't created such a rift between "body" and "soul" the church would be a lot more practical and useful today. Instead, we're too busy building bigger barns.
...and some want to do a new translation of the Bible to "leave out the liberal parts." What part of Jesus' message to they not understand? It is sad.
I don't think modern America has any claim to exceptionalism here. The church in almost every age and time has turned Jesus' more radical statements into something that applies to someone else at some other time. Not that that excuses the modern American church, but I think it's true.
I see some really hopeful signs that the modern American church is waking up. Prominent evangelical leaders talking about God's special concern for the poor. Baptists concerned about climate change. Wow! Maybe its not too late.
The Justice Revival must not have come up to your expectations?
Chris, no, that is not at all what I would say. I suppose this post was motivated in part by all that I heard, discussed and observed in the really great 3-day event we just completed. Several thousand area folks attended and were exposed to a great deal of inspirational and encouraging stuff! We began a movement that will be built and sustained over 20,000 cups of coffee in the coming months.
Anon 10:58, thanks for your balancing comments. I think it is true that there is an awakening among some churches. We'll see how that translates to action and realigned priorities. I hope you are correct, but I still see the groups you reference as exceptional. But then again, maybe that is all it takes--20%?
The paper said 883 were present the first night and even less the second. But regardless, poverty will increase with the insane policies coming from Washington. But Obama wants it that way, he wants people to be dependent on the Democrat party. Did you happen to hear the woman in Detroit a few weeks back as she was standing in line for money. She was asked where the money was coming from and she said "Obama will give it to me." When asked where Obama got it she hadn't the slightest idea. Finally she said she guessed he had a "stash."
The announcement today about having the trial in New York is just an example of the insanity. It's not like they robbed the 7-11.
Obama wants everyone to equally wallow in poverty. I suppose that would solve the problem of "helping the poor."
Didn't see the paper. The crowd was larger than that; that number may have been the official registrants--most of us just walked in and sat down. The hall was set originally for 6,000 which was whaat they had in Columbus two years ago; so it made the 2,000 folks present each night seem like a smaller group.
The real teachings of Jesus are too hard for most people to follow, and conflict with the modern American lifestyle, so many people either ignore them or re-interpret them to fit their own views. It's human nature.
Who said it and who uses this technique frequently?
“No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”
Anon 10:34, quite true. But your observation implies that I shouldn't be too concerned to understand and to follow, to the best of my abilities, the teachings of the One behind the book I read. While I will never be able to live up to the standards or the call to work for justice outlined in the body of literature standing back of the Judeo-Christian tradition, I can at least behave in a way that reflects my understanding of the values rather than just act as if they can be ignored or not understood at all. There is nothing inherently impossible about a life commitment to "bring good news to the poor." And, that value proposition can be understood.
As to clubbing people with the book, that is not at all called for. Just read it for yourself and let its affect be felt. If someone else reads the book to me and I find the truth I need to shape my life more consistently, I don't consider that being clubed, but enlightened.
Keep going Larry.
Well, let me answer the question posed by Anon preceding. One of LJ’s favorite gambits is to attack Churchs using Rules for Radicals by ole Saul Alinsky. The church is one of his primary targets in his religion de jour (liberation theology).
Liberation theology is another example of the politicization and secularization of the Christian message, one which renders the church incapable of doing anything other than “limping after” the secular world in its general dismantling of culture.
Always appreciate everyone's comments. Must say, however, that the two just above this one pain me a great deal personally. And it is hard to answer in any way that won't simply prompt even less understanding, but I feel obligated to try.
Haven't read Rule for Radicals in years and don't draw on it for these posts. I do read the Bible and have continued to discover amazing material every time I read back over it. Over 2,000 verses deal with poverty, justice and God's heart for the poor. A new edition of the Bible published by World Vision has highlighted these verses in their corporate orange for ready reference. I'm tempted at times to take the scissors to the Bible and cut out all of those passaged to illustrate how little would be left if we did so.
The last comment is particularly hard to read:
"Liberation theology is another example of the politicization and secularization of the Christian message, one which renders the church incapable of doing anything other than “limping after” the secular world in its general dismantling of culture."
The religious leaders and authorities of his day made much the same charge against Jesus--they felt he was leading folks away from an understanding of the proper place for religion in the world--ceremony without substance, belonging to a community without commitment or sacrifice, tradition over truth. They rejected him as a winebibber and a false prophet. Those who pursue his clear word today and who call the church to a higher place, to a place on the streets, near the gutters and out on the edges of the culture, these people stand in the same place as our Lord. I don't claim to be there myself, but I can see our failings and I long for a turn of heart for our own sake and for the sake of the poor and oppressed.
BTW--just for the record historically, Liberation Theology emerged from a context of violence, death squads, land control, extreme poverty and political disenfranchisement. Scripture had much to say that comforted those gathered in base communities, often in secret to read the word of God and draw strength from it. The context was not unlike that just before the Exodus when Yahweh got right "political" in a revolutionary movement of liberation.
One need look no further than Moody’s Handbook of Theology to find the fallacies of your belief system
“The evaluation of liberation theology is a general one; it is clear there are diverse voices in the movement, some further to the left, and others that are more moderate. Conservative Christians have serious reservations about liberation theology for the following reasons.
(1) Liberation theologians give secondary meaning to the ordinary meaning of the Scriptures. James Cone, for example, suggests that the resurrection of Christ means the liberation of all people, relating it to phys¬ical deliverance from oppression, The historic significance of the resur-rection as release from sin is ignored (cf. 1 Cor. 15).
(2) The matter of man’s sinfulness, and his need of a spiritual Savior to atone for sin, is ignored in liberation theology Liberation from sin is ignored; liberation is normally seen as essentially political. In fact, libera¬tion theologians view themselves as liberating their unjust oppressors from sin by overthrowing them. The greatest sin is not the violation of God's standard but social injustice.
(3) Hope for liberation theologians is not based on the biblical con¬cept of eternal life through Jesus Christ, but hope is related to Jurgen Molt -mann's view of realizing the future hope in the present through helping to shape the future (often through revolutionary means).
(4) For liberation theologians Like Gustavo Gutierrez theology is not the objective revelation of God given in prepositional truths (as it has been historically understood),, but theology is in flux, changing, and related to the changing of society It is a "Christian coating" of Marxist socialism.
(5) Liberation theology stands in violation of the injunction of Scrip¬ture concerning submission to government as outlined in Romans 13,
(6) The interpretive methodology of liberation might seriously be called into question, as in the case of Juan Luis 5egnndo, who does not begin with an inductive study of the Scriptures (allowing them to speak for them¬selves), but allows his political ideology to interpret the Scriptures.
(7) It is a false assumption of liberation theology, as Peter Wagner points out, to suggest that people will respond more readily to the gospel if they enjoy a more affluent environment Jose Porfirio Miranda relates Karl Marx to the apostle Paul, suggesting Marxist principles will lead people to love one another—all without the acknowledgment of sin and salva¬tion through Christ.
In summation, liberation theology does not approach the concepts of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation from an orthodox, biblical view¬point, but reinterprets them in a political contest.”
Anon 6:48, it is hard to respond to someone who refuses to sign their name and who quotes from some secondary source--a practice we learned at Harding Grad School was a bad thing to fall back on. So, I'd ask you two questions: 1) Have you ever actually read anything James Cone ever wrote? How about Gutierrez? I've met Dr. Cone, had coffee with him on one occassion and I can tell you his faith is deep, strong and very in the center of the gospel. Your source does not represent him accurately at all. 2) Have you considered how the gospel is presented and how it should apply in settings/contexts of extreme oppression? I refer you back to Moses and to Jesus. I call you into our world where the decisions of the powerful result in the crushing oppression of millions. What does the faith have to say to such situations and those involved in them? What does the gospel have to say to the development of an ethic that stands over against the greed and the injustice and often hatred back of such systems and powers? Are we to be so focued on the next life that we are of no earthly good while we live here? What about "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
Robert Cone is a rabbit trail and you know it. Betrayal of the Christian faith of our forefathers for a political philosophy is not a place I want to go.
Rule 1 of posting anonymously while bashing someone who you know nothing about: Get the person's name right.
Robert Cone is a lieutenant general in the Army.
JAMES Cone is a theologian, which is the Cone LJ is referring to.
Here's a suggestion: try READING some of James Cone's actual work, rather than taking someone else's opinion for it. I have read some of his writings and I can assure you that they are a lot more Christ-centric than the capitalist idol our churches are currently worshiping. Our churches today subscribe to a health and wealth gospel of personal prosperity in which loving thy neighbor only extends to personal gain. Labeling Cone as a political tool is purely a tactic to discredit the lifestyle calling of God's people.
It is very unfortunante that some on these pages routinely use labeling and distorting combined with arguments ad hominem and guilt by association to "argue" their points. None of these things constitute any actual substantive "argument" that can be addressed with a serious attempt to reply. (But valiant effort, Larry!) Such "arguments" amount to nothing more than intellectually vacuous dribble. I would suggest it is rather naive to think anyone who would write such posts should actually read the men/ideas they attack. They are not really interested in discussing substance, and certainly not in seeing nuance, but only in partisan attaks.
James Cone was the mentor of Jeremiah, God d...America, Wright. Need we say more? Both Barack Obama and Michelle subscribe to the views of Wright and Cone, perhaps Michell is the more radical of the two, who knows. She let it slip in her statement that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Obama has shown many times he is anti-American. Bring on 2012!
Chris:
Yes, you do need to say more, because so far you've really said nothing at all. In fact, you just make the point of post 10:09 above. "Mentor" and "subscribe to the views" = guilt by association and does not advance the discussion. "Radical" = labeling. "Anti-American" = labeling. "Shown many times" = distortion, exaggeration. Like I said, as usual you've really said nothing at all. McCarthy would've been proud!
any one who's grown up as a person of color in this country knows what the First Lady meant. doubt she let it slip at all. chirs, you and your right wing media nutcases can't possibly understand. do us all a favor and stop trying to tell us you can
In an interview on Hannity and Colmes earlier this year, Jeremiah Wright kept insisting that Sean Hannity could not understand him or his church unless he had read James Cone. Guilt by association?
chris, it would be a great exercise for you to read James Cone. I'd be happy to send you a copy of his God of the Oppressed. I think you would actually enjoy it and agree with most of it. It is basically a biblical study of how God over and over again expresses concern for the poor and the marginalized. If you'd like a copy, email me with your snail mail address at ljames@centraldallasministries.org and I'll send you a copy.
Thanks Larry, but I will have a look at it at Barnes and Noble. I often go there and read for hours in one of their comfy chairs. I did read some reviews.
He was a student at Philander Smith College in Little Rock when I was also a student at another place--about a half mile apart.
I like trivia:)
Daniel - your'e such a good little Marxist. What are you going to be when you grow up? Perhaps a community organizer?
When I grow up, I'm going to have the guts to publish my name to my comments rather than running around usurping people's blogs by posting anonymous, myopic drivel that helps me justify sitting in a church pew every Sunday philosophizing about theology while blatantly ignoring the call of Christ in the Biblical narrative to do something good for my fellow man instead of wallowing in my own self-righteousness.
Danny Boy,
Let me know when you grow up.
Yes, I should grow up, shouldn't I? Because I'm the one hurling insults and snarky comments while hiding behind anonymity. I'm glad you've found a way to amuse yourself.
Is it ok for ANON 3:11 to label and categorize anyone who disagrees with the more liberal positions taken here to be "labeled" as "you and your right wing media nutcases"? That is one of the real problems with the group that usually responds here. It is ok to "label" and make inflammatory remarks about the "nonbelievers". I see no one seems to want to call out the person who states he or she is a "person of color" for doing the precise thing you admonish the "nonbelievers" for doing. this is not really an open forum to discuss all sides. It is more of a forum to slam and criticise those who don't agree with your politics. But i do exclude Larry from this since he truly wants an open discussion. It is the rest of you knuckle heads who bring life to the cause of hatred for all things liberal. You don't own the market on what is right and what is wrong... no matter how many times you all repeat it amongst yourselves.
I think the comments to this post are typical. The first five are quite calm and rational. Then, in the sixth comment, Chris says: "Obama wants everyone to equally wallow in poverty. I suppose that would solve the problem of 'helping the poor.'" Now that's a "claim to own the market on what is right and what is wrong" if I ever heard one. Then it's all downhill from there. So please don't pretend the right-wing posts here are innocence personified. Chris and others throw in incendiary devices to get things started. Admittedly those farther left do respond, but I think they rarely "start it." Civil conversation usually starts civilly. Uncivil conversation starts uncivilly.
Comments like Chris's also derail the conversation, which somehow became about politics and "liberation theology" despite the fact that Larry's original post was about neither. Such comments do not respond to the substance of the post, I suspect because those making the comments have no real response and are uncomfortable with that fact.
Post a Comment