Posted on 09/06/2008 12:11:21 PM PDT by pharmamom
Full disclosure: I was raised Presbyterian, attended both Methodist and Episcopalian seminaries where I took Theology from both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic, OT exegetics from a Hebrew scholar, NT from an ancient Greek professor, and ethics from a Mennonite; served as an ordained minister in both “high” and “low” Episcopal parishes for almost a decade; married a Church of God pastor and two years ago was received into the Orthodox Church. If one can dine from the smorgasbord of Christianity, I certainly have eaten my fill. My choice of the Orthodox Church was a very thoughtful, deliberate one; and while I find the OC to be truest to early Christianity, I think I have a more-than-passing acquaintance with the Heinz-57 of mainstream American Christian tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at whenwearequeen.squarespace.com ...
The link at the top should take you to the rest.
> Jesus himself had little to do with the gentiles and nothing to say to them...
Not so. The woman at the well in Samaria? The centurion whose daughter was ill?
And what of His charge to the disciples to “go into the world and preach the Gospel”? He did say “world” — not just “the Jews”. And this was a message that He re-inforced, first to St Peter then to St Paul after His resurretion.
Sounds about right to me and I have not had near the education you have.
Baptize all nations, Centurions faith was like no other in Israel, Samaritan woman, etc...
I would disagree with your statement.
He told the gentile woman that he had not come to the gentiles—she caught him with the “crumbs from the table” line.
In my post, I noted that we are called to evangelize—but that call is specifically to bring others to Christ. Their salvation is our concern first and foremost—not whether their bellies are full. And certainly, we aren’t called to provide for their physical needs while allowing their spiritual state to rot.
The gospel isn’t a protocol for social change. It is a plan for salvation—and as we are saved, we become loving and charitable toward others. But the result of that is reaching out to others to bring them to Christ.
“Although he had much to say about the grace-filled life, Jesus was not primarily a community organizer. He was not an “political activist;” he did not focus any of his attention on the Roman government. He did not seek to establish an earthly socialist Utopia.
The Bible is not a public policy document, just as it is not a scientific treatise”
Those statements in part, explain the reason many Christian Churches are withering on the vine. They have forgotten their priamry charge of eternal salavation and replaced it with a gospel of socialist activism.
I think almost all of the following portions are false:
“Christian charity is an act of faith deriving from the process of theosification. It cannot be compelled by the government. Not only that, but caritas was intended for believing members of the community. Jesus himself had little to do with the gentiles and nothing to say to them. The early Church’s charity was extended only to Christians.
We are not called primarily to extend caritas to the teeming masses. Callous as it may be to say, physically caring for the hordes of unbelieving sick and starving in the world are not our first priority. Christians ARE called to evangelize, with the goal of bringing unbelievers into the fold of Christ. To the extent that we expend our limited resources on non-Christians, it is always with the intent of bringing them to Christ.
Those who receive the charity extended by the Christian are called to become responsible, believing participants in the Christian community. Jesus may have told the Pharisees to drop their stones, but he also admonished the adultering woman to cease her sinning. As a receipient of grace, she didn’t get to say, “Hey, thanks!” and turn around to embrace sin again. Similarly, those who benefit from caritas today are called to become responsible, accountable social participants. Those who failed to do so were sanctioned—and ultimately could be expelled from the community.
Early Christian socialism, if we can indeed even call the socio-political structure of the early Church that, was effective only because the local church was able to provide for virtually all of its own needs. Within that structure, every member did his part. The history of socialism shows us that on a large-scale and absent genuine bonds between members of the community, a large percentage of the populace will not just be satisfied with living off the work of others, but will come to see that circumstance as a birthright and feel no compulsion to contribute to their own maintenance.”
There are flecks of truth in what you write in these passages but you are primarily arguing that the gospel has an intrinsically introverted reach. That is not true. Jesus was quite aggressive in communicating with non-believers and people outside the Jewish tradition. Jesus fed people prior to teaching which undermines your call for Christian insularity.
I think this section is pretty theologically weak and I would not urge anyone to found their life upon it.
You do have a point—he ministered at times to the gentiles. But he said himself that he was there to fulfill the law and the prophets—and that his ministry was primarily for his own people. In John, he makes a clear distinction between gentile and Jew.
The early church was embroiled for years in argument about evangelizing the gentiles, so obviously, they didn’t rely on just the gospel mandate to “baptize all nations”—it wasn’t clear-cut from the beginning.
I will modify my point though—which is that we are called first to care for believers and also to bring others to Christ, not to become immersed in the task of caring for the physical needs of non-believers.
Thanks
> He told the gentile woman that he had not come to the gentiles—she caught him with the “crumbs from the table” line.
I believe He said that to test her humility. And the really interesting bit is what He did as a result of her answer.
As to the Roman Centurion?
First. Jesus says he must go to the lost sheep of Israel FIRST.
The early church was embroiled for years in argument about evangelizing the gentiles, so obviously, they didn’t rely on just the gospel mandate to “baptize all nations”—it wasn’t clear-cut from the beginning.
The argument was more of the "Don't the Gentiles need to be Jew first?" line of thought.
Good discussion. I'll get back to you later with other thoughts.
frogjerk
Do you think Christian charity can be compelled by government? Can you show that the early Church expended its resources on feeding and clothing the pagans? Where in Church teaching can you show that our primary goal is not to bring non-believers to Christ? Where in the gospel does Jesus assert that non-believers should keep on in their sin?
I think I argued that the gospel is not introverted—I think I explicitly stated that we are called to bring others to Christ. My point is that evangelizing must be focused on bringing non-believers to Christ—not on simply feeding and clothing people and allowing them to continue their lives otherwise uninterrupted. Yes, he fed the people who had come to hear him—but his intention was to convert them, not fill their bellies. The point of his miracle in feeding the masses was that abundance, both physical and spiritual, comes from the grace of God as represented by Jesus. He didn’t feed them and then go off to take a nap.
Part of Jesus' message was that Salvation is from the Jews [An absolute Truth because it came out of HIS mouth] but also He has come to adopt all of mankind that will believe in him and do his works as prophesied, esp in Isaiah.
You are correct. I will refine my assertion.
My choice of the Orthodox Church was a very thoughtful, deliberate one;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you prayed about your decision as well as thought about it.
Yes, prayer was involved, but I believe that God uses our heads, too, to lead us.
I think I agree with the premises of your question. I think I also agree with the vitality of sharing the gospel as the central purpose.
Jesus did not preach against the Roman state— which would have been quite popular. He did pay taxes which was a provocative public act on his part.
He did befriend a tax collector which was also provocative.
Ultimately, I think Jesus offers himself as the last scapegoat. All false prophets come spinning a scapegoat that they galvanize the public toward annihilating. By offering himself as the last scapegoat, Jesus defuses politics.
I think my caution here is that blaming the state will not produce salvation in Christ.
To quote Martin Luther (when asked abouts his accusers performance in debate) “He quotes no scripture”.
Let me know if you need references.
Tom
I refined my position on the gentiles—reflecting that yes, Jesus extended his ministry at times to non-Jews, but that it was always as part of his work of saving grace.
My point is that Jesus fed and healed people not as an end, but as a means and as a part of who he was (is). So too, we care for others’ physical needs, but with their spiritual needs as our focus. It does us no good to keep millions alive and yet ignore their spiritual illness.
There us no point in worrying about which church is right, for we do know that the bible is truth. I tried to find a church who teaches as close to the truth as one can find. My lifelong studies have shown me that most people are more willing to follow a man or a denomination than the Word of God. I have a love for people who try to walk in the right way, no matter the denomination. There is much ignorance out there.
I wonder if Luther’s opponents were as lazy as I, sitting on my couch! Besides, I am not taking an adversarial position with any here at FR. I have learned more about faith here at FR than almost anywhere else.
I got sucked in to a government entitlement debate elsewhere, and ultimately was accused of being a non-Christian because I don’t think the government should coerce (or can coerce) true charity. True charity comes naturally from a converted spirit. And true charity has expectations and concern for the spiritual health of the recipient.
Dear, dear. I wasn’t trying to get into a “my church is better than your church” debate here. :+) See my reply to some of the others—I am arguing against those who seem to want to use Jesus as just a “really great guy” who has “a lot to teach us,” but who we can ignore otherwise.
“I will modify my point though—which is that we are called first to care for believers and also to bring others to Christ, not to become immersed in the task of caring for the physical needs of non-believers.”
Please do modify it. Christ was moved with compassion for the masses - as evidenced in the feeding of the 5000. They were not all believers.
Often, you gain the platform to speak to people’s spiritual needs by meeting their physical needs. But, even if they
don’t respond, I have come to believe that Christianity leads to having compassion for those suffering and doing what we can to help provide relief.
It is never an excuse, however, to ignore their spiritual needs.
Good luck
ampu
Slow down cowboys! I am not looking for a debate between believers—the context was that I got sucked in elsewhere with people asserting that a “true” Christian must be for universal healthcare and all other “social justice” issues.
:+)
What exactly do you want? To get into a theological discussion about your life and beliefs?
This is a good question for the exact reasons you state in an earlier post on that blog regarding quoting Scripture to justify stealing money to give to others.
I may be way off base here, but I have seriously pondered this question over the last few years. As a bleeding heart liberal Democrat I was all about equitable distribution of the world’s wealth and resources. I am now a conservative, but sometimes I feel the left has a point when it accuses the right of ignoring real suffering that requires some help to overcome. I get what the right is saying about individual responsibility, private property rights and keeping the fruits of one’s labor, but I am moved by those who cannot help themselves.
So, the question, What would Jesus do? or more importantly what would Jesus have us, as Christians do?
Well, IMO, Jesus wanted us to love. If you are an employer, you should give your employees a fair wage. If you are an employee, you should give your boss an honest’s days work.
If you see someone in need(true need, not a lazy, hand out attitude)you should give help.
The pharisees, Saduccess and scribes used the law as an excuse not to help others. Christians who would force others to help through taxation for redistribution by the government use these social services(law)as an excuse not to give to charity.
Jesus was not a radical. He was the truth and he revealed it to us in his life and gospel. Love God with all you heart, mind, body and strength.(So obey the law) and love thy neighbors(true charity not forced by the government).
> I refined my position on the gentiles—reflecting that yes, Jesus extended his ministry at times to non-Jews, but that it was always as part of his work of saving grace.
I’d agree to that. If you look at the Bible end-to-end, one of the themes that jumps out is the theme of ongoing Apostasy: Mankind’s repeated falling away from the True Faith. It started with Adam and Eve, it was corrected with Noah. Then it fell away again at Babel. Corrected with Abraham. Fell away again after Joseph. Corrected again with Moses. Fell away again thru the Judges. Corrected with King David. Fell away again after Solomon. Corrected with Hezekiah. Fell away again with the captivity and spun out of control with Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther...
...which brought us to where Jesus found matters: a Pharisaical apostasy bearing no resemblance to the True Faith. He had to minister to the Jews first because of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. And He had to open these promises up to the Gentiles, too, when the Jews rejected Him as their Messiah — a stance that most of them still adhere to.
And since Christ’s time, even Christianity runs the risk of Apostasy. Christ has asked somewhat rhetorically “will He find the true Faith?” when He returns.
I guess that is the Challenge for everyone who professes to be Christian.
No, I was coming to FR off of a debate somewhere else where the central point seemed to be that the gospel is a policy document and Jesus’ goal was to transform society, not bring us to salvation. From there, I put down some thoughts and brought them here primarily for input from the OCs, but also from FReepers in general, whom I find to be pretty darn knowledgeable about Scripture and theology.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.
That's true...Except to say, Jesus would have known that the people would have left to find some food had He not provided lunch for them...
In my view, it's odd that you would lean toward the Orthodox Church...
If I understand it correctly, they, as well as the RCC believe we are currently living in the physical Kindgom of God with Jesus Christ as the King, ruling over the church and the world...
And that is to say that the 'Church' will ultimately bring peace on earth and the 'Church' will bring all into the fold of the Church and, the 'Church' will make the world better and better to the point that it is good enough for Jesus to show up again...
There are a number of us on the other side who believe the Kingdom of God is Spiritual and and things will get worse and worse until Jesus shows up to defeat evil; and THEN He will set us His physical Kingdom...
It's quite possible in these areas you are more knowledgeable than I am. It wouldn't be hard.
...but he also admonished the adulterer to cease her sinning.
The older I get the more I come to rely on the Gospel of John for my solace. I'm pretty sure it was written for me and me alone.
I also think in this event Jesus knew the woman would most likely sin again. Heck's bells, if he held human nature against humans he would have had to kick to the curb every last one of the Apostles and more than once. I also think if the community organizers had paraded the lass to him again next week after committing the exact same sin once again, he would have found it in his heart to forgive her again, possibly with a plaintive sigh and the same admonition.
If we can divine God’s intentions, the most we can say is that God intends the salvation of His creation.
I'm pretty pathetic at trying to figure out what G-d has in mind. I hope I can get to the bottom of his plans for me before I leave this vale of tears. I did figure out a bit one day while bailing my own boat that I need to bail furiously, and I will never again in my life try to tell G-d what to do. I only know that I am the lass standing before him AND the prodigal son (still looking for the path home) AND a disciple asking him, "Since I don't know where you are going, how can I know the way?"
I need a larger bailing utensil.
Iscool,
Your response, post #31 states exactly what I was thinking.
Tom
You’re correct about that. I’ve learned that if you have a question that needs answering ask the freepers.
If the FReepers don’t know it, it probably isn’t worth knowing. :+)
I don’t think you have the OC understanding of soteriology, eschatology and ecclesiology quite right...but I would defer to my more knowledgeable counterparts Kolokotronis and Agrarian there.
The OC believe that we ARE partaking of the Paschal Feast at the same time that we are eagerly awaiting it. It is, I believe, a both/and kind of thing. Here and yet still to come. When we gather as the Church, we ARE Christ’s people and Christ’s body, yet we exist within a world still embattled with sin and death. We are saved, and yet we are undergoing continual theosis, or god-becoming.
I am pretty sure the Orthodox believe that it is Christ who will bring all within the fold of the Church (the Body of Christ), not the Church! The Church is the Body of Christ on earth, but it isn’t capable of effecting salvation in and of itself.
Perhaps you get turned around with the Orthodox emphasis on the Church—certainly I think the OC would assert that Christ’s work is done on earth primarily through the Church. But in my experience, the Orthodox are reluctant to make judgments about what kind of work God may be effecting outside of the OC.
I don’t know—I’m a rookie. I’ll ping Kolo and kosta50, see what they think.
I think your accuser has it almost exactly reversed.
In the West, prior to the Reformation, do you know what the main social welfare organization was? It was the church, primarily in the form of monastic communities. If you were down on your luck, you went to the monks to get food, shelter, or other help to get back on your feet. The King had nothing to do with it, in general.
It would never have occurred to those folks that the government ought to attempt to coerce charity.
I'm not sure how it worked in the East.
Speaking as a Catholic ... well, sort of. The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth. We are tasked to extend Christ's reign as King over the whole world. That means that nothing is ultimately outside his authority. However ...
And that is to say that the 'Church' will ultimately bring peace on earth and the 'Church' will bring all into the fold of the Church and, the 'Church' will make the world better and better
Well, that's very good, but ... to the point that it is good enough for Jesus to show up again.
No[e, the traditional Catholic eschatological understanding is that our pre-parousia effort to extend the reign of Christ the King is in some sense a (temporarily) losing effort, because there will be a great apostasy, there will be an Antichrist (or more than one), and there will be a period of tribulation prior to the Final Coming of Christ.
This is said to be prefigured by the paschal mystery (remember that term?) ... that is, just like her Bridegroom, the church will live, thrive, preach to the world, be greatly exalted (as in the Transfiguration), and then be brutally persecuted and effectively killed, before rising in glory.
Yup, spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.