Friday, March 11, 2005
Jim Wallis Argues Christianity Not Compatible With Political Conservatism
Ok, I'll bite. Let's play.
While I have some major theological disagreements with Pat Robertson, to use him as an example, he does a lot through Operation Blessing to help the poor. Can he site some examples or is he just spreading pablum? And please don't give me Benny Hinn and other Word of Faith preachers.
This paragraph illustrates a major source of error and confusion. Commands meant for individuals do not necessarily pertain to governments. If you can't understand this point, you will have many problems interpreting the Bible. For example, Paul in Romans mentions that government holds the sword. The sword. You cannot have a government without force and the threat of force.
Yes, but the responsibility for the "least of these" is on us individually. As someone who doesn't give nearly enough to charity, I cannot agree with his unstated premise. His premise is that our responsibility has to be manifested through the government. I see no biblical command to take other people's money by force in order to help the poor. God wants you to give your own money.
And as we have seen confusing the roles of church and nation is not just a problem on the right.
Ok, I'll bite. Let's play.
The politics of Jesus is a problem for the religious right.
In Matthew’s 25th chapter, Jesus speaks of the hungry, the homeless, the stranger, prisoners, and the sick and promises he will challenge all his followers on the judgment day with these words, “As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” James Forbes, the pastor of Riverside Church in New York City, concludes from that text that, “Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor!” How many of America’s most famous television preachers could produce the letter?
While I have some major theological disagreements with Pat Robertson, to use him as an example, he does a lot through Operation Blessing to help the poor. Can he site some examples or is he just spreading pablum? And please don't give me Benny Hinn and other Word of Faith preachers.
The hardest saying of Jesus and perhaps the most controversial in our post–Sept. 11 world must be: “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.” Let’s be honest: How many churches in the United States have heard sermons preached from either of these Jesus texts in the years since America was viciously attacked on that world-changing September morning in 2001? Shouldn’t we at least have a debate about what the words of Jesus mean in the new world of terrorist threats and pre-emptive wars?
This paragraph illustrates a major source of error and confusion. Commands meant for individuals do not necessarily pertain to governments. If you can't understand this point, you will have many problems interpreting the Bible. For example, Paul in Romans mentions that government holds the sword. The sword. You cannot have a government without force and the threat of force.
Any serious reading of the Bible points toward poverty as a religious issue, and candidates should always be asked by Christian voters how they will treat “the least of these.” Stewardship of God’s earth is clearly a question of Christian ethics. Truth telling is also a religious issue that should be applied to a candidate’s rationales for war, tax cuts, or any other policy, as is humility in avoiding the language of “righteous empire,” which too easily confuses the roles of God, church, and nation.
Yes, but the responsibility for the "least of these" is on us individually. As someone who doesn't give nearly enough to charity, I cannot agree with his unstated premise. His premise is that our responsibility has to be manifested through the government. I see no biblical command to take other people's money by force in order to help the poor. God wants you to give your own money.
And as we have seen confusing the roles of church and nation is not just a problem on the right.
