Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
July 6th, 2010

(Looking For) Contributors, Civility, Disagreement, Discourse, and Reconciliation

This is a repost, of sorts, seeing that I have added more contributors and looking for more. Too often, we only examine the side of the evidence which we agree with – we see this is our news sources, no doubt. Me? I will only watch MSNBC, not even CNBC. I will read the Christian Science Monitor and every once in a while, the BBC. I would watch BBC America, but they speak British. I want my news in English, please.

I have conservative evangelicals, evangelicals, liberal Christians, liberals, and yes, even an atheist who write for this blog, and that doesn’t even begin to describe my positions. Why? Because it is needed. I want to learn and in turn, help others to learn and live in a world where information and discourse is abundant. For a civilization, we are often times uncivil in our disagreements. All too often, my dear Christians, we who proclaim ‘discernment’ as a gift of the Spirit fail to exercise that ability, instead relying only upon what agrees with us to be counted as Truth. Instead, how much better would we be if we could examine facts and opinions based on their merit and not if they agree with us or our presuppositions? Are we afraid that if we take biblical criticism and science seriously, that we will lose our own faith? If so, you have no real faith, but only a fundamental need to know things for sure. It is an all or nothing approach, and you have made yourself the final arbiter of truth, leaning to your own understanding. We have a belief system, which believe it or not, has changed considerably as it met Science. Oh yes, that’s right, Science has caused many to be reactionary in their faith. Faith is the reality of things which we confidently expect to happen; it is not science.

For those who believe the bible to be a serious document, then you will remember that writer who expressed that we are not given a spirit of fear, and yet, how often do fellow believers fear science and criticism and opposing view-points? I am convinced that the main reason that gays, Muslims, and scientists are hated as vitriolically as they are by my fellow believers is because they present a different viewpoint on the world than we have been taught to believe. My faith is stronger because I have faced these things and found them inconsequential, and in no longer fearing them, I have gone on about my Father’s business. We don’t have to agree with them, but at some point, we have to live with them.

While people are essentially free (no profanity or vulgarity, etc…) to write their own posts – I don’t censor – I don’t agree with all of them. I don’t expect you too, either. I don’t fully expect you to agree with me completely, or at all, or have an opinion one way or the other.

From here:

“One of the things that Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks where such-and-such a point ‘really matters’ and the other replies: ‘Matters? Why it’s absolutely essential (p. x)…’ The Historic Christian Faith turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all (p. xi).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

You can email me if you want to contribute or just guest post. You can do so anonymously, if you want.

Old:

As you, my dear friends, may know, I have different contributors posting at different times on this blog. Wait, it gets better.

I don’t always agree with each and every one of them, except you know, my wife and all. And you may not either. My goodness, you – you may not agree with me all the time. (Impossible!)

I have asked several people to contribute from different perspectives on things. I want to be examined and to examine myself by others. Sometimes, I find myself lacking, some times, I feel justified in my belief and opinion. Sometimes, I am sharpened. Sometimes, moderated. Lifted up and other times destroyed. But, I prefer it that way – to examine my own salvation, to know if what I am doing, saying, and thinking – the path that I am on – is the right path, the better path, the godly path. I make mistakes and will continue to do so. But I want to grow.

If you see a contributor on here saying something that my contradict me, that’s fine. Peter and Paul has disagreements as well. Do you see them saying something you don’t agree with? Possible. That doesn’t make them right or me endorsing them. What it does do is to further the conversation which I hope furthers the Kingdom and helps us to examine ourselves.

By the way, if you want to be a contributor, let me know. You can even do so anonymously.

That got me to thinking, dangerously.

I was a political science major at the university. I love politics. You really have no idea how difficult it is for me to watch a news program and not shout at the screen. It gets real embarrassing in a doctor’s office. Politics, once, to me was the life-blood of my soul. Not any more really. No, it is still there, but I hope to be investing into something more radical, more enduring, more eternal. Doesn’t mean that I don’t have political opinions – although my opinions are generally more like facts.

I happened to talk to a friend a while ago – one from a much different end of the perspective than I. As we were talking, I thought of telling him just how liberal he sounded. And I suspect that he thought the same about me, ‘He sure does sound conservative.’ I watch the newscasts and read the papers about those in pretty temples of democracy who are bitterly partisan. But, on the ground, are many of us that way? And if so, I wonder what would happen if the people actually sat down and listened to each other? Do we have the same motivating goals?

I am not talking about true believers or party extremists. I am talking about those left out of decision-making circles – you know, the ones of us who are effected by the policy made on the altars of these temples. I have extremely liberal friends and extremely conservative friends, but I have noticed that when we talk about issues such as health care reform, taxes, and other such things – and we turn off FoxNews and MSNBC – we have remarkable similarities. Both, no doubt, do not want to see people without health care. See, this is different from the goals of many lawmakers who don’t want to see another person in his or her office.

Both of us want to see taxes more fairly distributed.

Both sides want to make sure people are not dying in the streets due to poverty.

Just a thought here, but what if people started to talk to each other. You know, without talking points. What if you and me sat down over a cup of coffee and discovered that we really aren’t that different. That you are not trying to destroy the country and neither am I?

Granted, you have extremists on both sides. Those that believe in conspiracy theories. Bush planned 9/11. Obama is a Muslim. The Masons rule the world. Democrats are baby killers. Republicans are Nazis. Polycarp is not my real name.

Maybe we can get read of that talk for a while?

There are things that unite everyday Americans – like the fact that many of us want to see a better place for our children than what we have now. Or that we want to see poverty eradicated. Racism gone. Sexism gone. Taxes gone. Our government listen to us for a change.

And what about our Faith?

What unites us here? God. Christ. Love.

What if we focused on those things in our faith? We will always have divisions, but what if we start there and end there. We might not be able to walk with each other always, but what about the things we can do together?

So, if you see something here that you may not like, challenge the writer, and be challenged within yourself. If you see someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Challenge and them and be challenged within yourself. See if you can reach them with your understanding and find out theirs. Maybe our goals are the same, even if we differ in our mechanisms to accomplish them.

Just a ramble here. Nothing more to see. Moving on…

July 5th, 2010

Yeah, Good Luck with That – The Talbott Pledge

Honestly, how many do you think would sign?

The Pledge

  1. I pledge never to meet at any time or place with any lobbyists or their representatives, or knowingly communicate with them in any way, saving my valuable time for meetings and communications with my own constituents and my fellow Americans.
  2. I pledge to refuse any and all lobbyist money and support as well as donations from foreign entities, corporations, banks, PAC’s or any political parties and will only accept contributions from real human persons.
  3. I pledge not to seek reelection to the House after six years of service (twelve years for Senators) as I have no interest in becoming a permanent Washington insider, but only wish to serve my constituents.
  4. I pledge to try my best to determine and then vote the way a majority of my constituents would vote on any particular issue and not let my own biases, opinions and prior beliefs affect my final vote.

I pledge the title to my home and primary residence (or 1/3 of my assets, whichever is greater) to be held in escrow with the instructions it (they) be sold and the net proceeds distributed equally to my constituents if I ever break any of the promises above.

Signed,

All Future Democrat, Republican and Independent Candidates for Congress

June 22nd, 2010

By George, I think Jim’s got it

Of course, it is not ‘Austrian’ economics, which an unholy and wholly unbiblical concept, but I have to agree with Jim for the most part. I agree with his points and would add just a few, course, namely the right for workers to freely organize. I would also, one day, like to see some sort of shortened election cycle with public monies for interested candidates. I would love to see a book of candidates have to be printed each election cycle, with everyone who can run, run. We need a revitalized Republic, just not sure if that is possible.

Anyway, you can see Jim’s Platform for the new Biblioblogger Party here:

It’s An Election Year… « Zwinglius Redivivus.

June 17th, 2010

Saint Sarah, of the Palin

The year is 345a.s. and in the middle of a large cornfield, in northern Alaska, a crowd is gathered to honor Saint Sister Sarah, of the Palin, who around 345 years ago was born, to become the first female President of the United States of America, bringing an end to the liberal media bias, and indeed, much of Western Civilization. Her tale had grown far and wide, and now, as they meet in what was once a tundra covered land, now a crowing corn field, to honor her… oh bleh…

Anyway, Lisa Miller has an interesting article on the new Religious Right, which seems to be led by Sarah Palin. I would prefer a Religious Middle – not Wallis, not Palin, but who am I?

To millions of women, Palin’s authenticity makes her a sister in arms—“Sisters!” she called out in Washington, as if at a revival—a beautiful, fearless, principled fighter who shares their struggles. To a smaller number, she is a prophet, ordained by God for a special role in the cosmic battle against the forces of evil. A 2009 profile in the Christian magazine Charisma compared Palin to the Old Testament’s Queen Esther, who saved her people, in this case the Jews, from annihilation.

Lisa is a bit condescending (pot, kettle, yes, I know) to Sarah and her followers, but over all, not a bad story. You can read another take here:

Is Sarah Palin The New Leader Of The Christian Right? | Religion Dispatches.

I think she might actually win if she runs, but we’ll see. She is not a second stringer, so I don’t see her on the second spot for another ticket, but she is the vote getter and if someone with policy skills was her second spot….

June 16th, 2010

Rush Limbaugh, A Disgusting Human Being

Honestly, and this is the leader of the Republican Party?

June 7th, 2010

Calls to Repeal the 17th Amendment

That’s right, finally, people are starting to realize what the 17th amendment accomplished when it was passed. If you read the Federal Papers, what I like to call the Constitution, KJV-Only, and understand what a ‘State’ actually is, then you will understand the value of the Senators before the 17th Amendment, when the States shared, via these select few, the powers of the Executive.

First here,

After gaining control of much of the world’s copper supply, the 19th-century robber baron William A. Clark set out to buy a seat in the United States Senate. Openly, he went about bribing Montana legislators, $10,000 a vote, the cash paid in monogrammed envelopes.

Mark Twain called Clark “as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag,” but the senator did not show any shame. “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale,” he said.

It was corruption such as this that led to the 17th Amendment, which allows direct election of senators by the people, not state legislators. And it was stone-hearted, Gilded Age titans like Clark who prompted this populist movement in the West.

Then here,

Over at the NYT, political columnist Matt Bai on Wednesday offers up his take on the recent calls to repeal the 17th Amendment.

We blogged on Tuesday a different NYT piece about the 17th Amendment, which changed the way U.S. Senators are elected. Before 1913, U.S. senators were appointed by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment provides for direct popular election of United States senators.

Now, some think we should turn back the clock, put the election of U.S. senators back into the hands of state legislators. The rationale, shortly stated: the old system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights.

(Click the links to read the rest of the articles).

The House was established to represent the People while the Senate, the States. It was a Republic then. And, if any political historians are out there, you might dig into the controversy over the Preamble to the Constitution and the much beloved phrase, ‘We the People…’ Anyway, I wonder if this crescendo will go anywhere?

June 5th, 2010

More Glenn Beck Idiocracy – Congress Didn’t Print the First Bible

Can you pick apart the errors yourself?

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools from Chris Rodda on Vimeo.

If not, you can find many of the errors explained here.

For anyone who has been following the unholy new partnership between Glenn Beck and Christian nationalist history revisionist David Barton, no explanation for why I’m posting this is necessary. For anyone who hasn’t had the pleasure of watching Beck and Barton in action, here’s the background in a nutshell: David Barton, the pseudo-historian from Texas who’s probably more responsible than any other individual for spreading the erroneous belief that America was founded as a Christian nation, has now teamed up with Glenn Beck. Barton, who appeared on the radar recently as one of the history “experts” in the Texas textbook massacre, is also a former vice-chair of the Texas Republican Party, and, in 2005, was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America by Time Magazine. Barton has now made several appearances on Beck’s show, armed with his usual scholarly schtick and pile of impressive historical items from his extensive private collection.

One of the items in Barton’s bag of historical tricks is a rare Bible printed in 1782 by Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken. This Bible has been a mainstay of Barton’s presentations for years, and was, as expected, one of the featured pieces of Christian nation “evidence” whipped out on Beck’s show. Barton’s bogus claim about this Bible? It was printed by Congress for the use of schools — proof that the founders never intended a separation between church and state. Needless to say, Beck and his audience are just eating this stuff up. Barton’s appearances on Beck’s show have propelled his fifteen-year-old book of historical hogwash, Original Intent, to bestseller status, reaching as high as #6 on Amazon. Right now, as I sit here writing this post, this masterpiece of historical revisionism is ludicrously, and alarmingly, holding the #1 spot in the category of “Constitutional Law.”

(ht – James McGrath via Facebook)

May 31st, 2010

The Theological Declaration of Barmen

Today, 31 May, is the anniversary of the Theological Declaration of Barmen. Read it. Read the history surrounding it.

While reading an unrelated work, I came across the mention of this pre-WW2 document which tried to prevent the Christian Churches in Germany from becoming the tools of Adolf Hitler who spouted Christian rhetoric to suit his purposes. These pro-Nazi churches were noticeably nationalistic in tone, and quickly allied themselves with the ruling authorities, causing no small distress to those which sought the separation of Church and State.

I believe that it is important to note, especially in this time, that others have faced the draw of realigning the Church with the State – and others have laboured to the point of death to prevent it.

Here is a site with some quotations from Hitler dealing with Christianity. I mention this because many will assume that Hitler was an atheist, etc… but few realize the close relationship he had with certain (un)Christian churches in Germany. While he claimed what he wanted, a simple reading of Scripture tells you what a Christian is – and a genocidal murder is not.

I. An Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany

The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.

Therefore the Confessional Synod calls upon the congregations to range themselves behind it in prayer, and steadfastly to gather around those pastors and teachers who are loyal to the Confessions.

Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! Do not listen to the seducers who pervert our intentions, as if we wanted to break up the unity of the German Evangelical Church or to forsake the Confessions of the Fathers!

Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.” Therefore, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

II. Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church

According to the opening words of its constitution of July 11, 1933, the German Evangelical Church is a federation of Confessional Churches that grew our of the Reformation and that enjoy equal rights. The theological basis for the unification of these Churches is laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the constitution of the German Evangelical Church that was recognized by the Reich Government on July 14, 1933:

* Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission are hereby determined and limited.
* Article 2 (1). The German Evangelical Church is divided into member Churches Landeskirchen).

We, the representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of free synods, Church assemblies, and parish organizations united in the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church, declare that we stand together on the ground of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of German Confessional Churches. We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the “German Christians” and of the Church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the “German Christians” as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and th German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible.

As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the intrrelations of the Confessional Churches.

In view of the errors of the “German Christians” of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

1. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6). “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

2. “Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30.)

As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.

We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords–areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

3. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together.” (Eph. 4:15,16.)

The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

4. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men excercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your srvant.” (Matt. 20:25,26.)

The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

5. “Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:17.)

Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

6. “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20.) “The word of God is not fettered.” (2 Tim. 2:9.)

The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of th free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional Churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

Finally, Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

The Theological Declaration of Barmen.

May 27th, 2010

Jim Wallis: Is Tea Party Libertarianism Christian?

Wallis is starting a conversation – I suspect he already has his answer – with the current trend in anti-government politics:

The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn’t make it “Christian.” But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles — and it should be.

via How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism? – Jim Wallis – God’s Politics Blog.

May 24th, 2010

On the Text that Trumps the King

“The book is thus, in our pair of narratives, similar in meaning and function to the king, but more important – more powerful – than the king, because the book rules over the king.” Grottannelli (1999:189; Sanders 2009:154)

Grottannelli is discussing the two Temple Discoveries in 2 Kings 11 (Josiah) and 2nd Kings 22 (Deuteronomy) (and Sanders is discussing Grottannelli). He draws attention to the parallels between the discovery and the enthronement of the two, in that both are discovered in the Temple and both are recognized by Israel as authoritative. Yet, it is the text which was saved when the dynasty died shortly thereafter. That text many believe was Deuteronomy. In this book was the covenanting material that kept Israel alive through exile.

Seth Sander’s book has provided a key insight into the creation of the biblical text, which acted much in the same way as the Tyndale/King James did for the English people. My review is coming shortly, but while Sanders sees the politics of the creation of the Hebrew Language, which gave the world the first ‘you’ as an addresses, bypassing a king who was only as legitimate as God allowed him to be, many could see still a divine hand which touched history in this regard. This touch created a text which has changed the entire world. It trumped not only the national, tribal king, but the great ‘universal kings’ such as the Assyrians.

It is the text, the biblical – the political – text, which trumps a king, because the text is what has shaped the people, of which the king is only a part.