I want a new word to be born. I am so often subject to guilt by association, in the form of various terms based on the word ‘Christian’, that I simply wish there were a word people could use to indicate they were speaking of those who weren’t emulating the examples of Christ in any significant way, but still were able to utter the words "I am Christian".
I have watched reasonably polite folks sorta wrestle with this problem as time goes by. Once, most derogatory remarks were rather thoughtlessly simply referring to Christians, but that tended to result in a whole lot of people speaking up to say; "Hey, wait a minute, I’m Christian, and I don’t do X, Y, or Z despicable thing, why do you speak as if all Christians do these things?"
Which kinda stands to reason, since the overwhelming majority of Americans call themselves Christian in some form. A poll from a couple years ago, showed that 70% of people registered Democrat, called themselves Christian. It really doesn’t make much sense to think of Christians as a political demographic, yet that seemed to be the gist of much of the angst, an association with what at that point began to be called "conservative Christians".
But that term doesn’t really make any sense either, which started to be somewhat clearer, as it also became clear that the political beast that was responsible for this less than wholesome new trend, was not itself conservative in any significant way. Perhaps tomorrow I shall invent a word for this spawn of the military/industrial/corporate/media complex’s political outlook, but for now, RepubliCon will do. Perfectly reasonable conservatives, have been given a bad name through the hijacking of that descriptive, and the same is true of "conservative Christians". The term obviously would be more meaningful if it was applied to the long standing tradition of upright and cooperatively minded Christian citizens. Pretty much an old school basic American. One of us.
There was also "radical Christians", and "zealous Christians" and " hypocritical Christians", and even just "christians". And also "the most devout Christians", and "literal Christians", and "evangelical Christians", and "the Christian right". Now the PC term is "fundamentalist Christians", or to display a vague awareness of how long this evolution has been ricocheting down the halls of social interaction; "fundies".
But fundamentalism is just another hijacked term. There’s nothing fundamental to the teaching of Christ that would condone something as morally repugnant, cowardly, and arrogant as "pre-emptive war". There’s no wiggle room in what Jesus instructed us to do, which allows for bombing a health clinic, or agreeing with the concept of imprisoning and torturing human beings based on rumors and suspicions. (One would think the later would be kinda self evident to a Christian, so to speak). This term, almost above all the rest, is unfair to sincere Christians, and the Book they cherish.
Now, I’m not addressing the many people that actually get off on snarling at Christians, or religious folk as a whole, here. I’ll deal with that in other times and places. But to those who would like some way to direct your nasty remarks at specifically those people whom you see as essentially behaving in unChristian fashion, and treating the "religious" aspect of Christianity as some sort of crusade to make non-Christians, and/or non-crusade-Christians, pay a price of some kind for not seeing things their way . . .while making it clear that you are not referring to anyone else, ,, I have a word.
The word is Christianist. And Christionism. And Christianate. For example;
"I become slightly infuriated when I see Mr. Rove exploit the Christianist’s vitriolic gifts, by inciting them to talk about gays". Or, "The Republican party’s use of hot button issues, to pander to the clowns trying to Christionate America, is a brilliant tactic, but a feeble strategy".
Carry on.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 70
Blessings and best wishes - S.
Your article is a good one, and I haven't seen as many as I would like to see from you. Christian -- to be a disciple/follower of the Christos (Anointed One) is quite self-explanatory, provided one has knowledge of what the Anointed One stood for/stands for.
I am disgusted with the exploitation by the "Christian Right", which I have renamed the Christian Wrong of Christianity. All one need do is take parallel looks at what Jesus said and stood for and what they said and stand for; that's it. Were anyone to do that, they would see the people speaking aren't Christians, in the manner that Jesus referred to his sheep and Paul referred to his brethren.
Just what kind of Christians they are? Go ask Satan, because I think he spends more time in the buildings of worship than these kinds of "Christians" do.
Your rating is low; you must be doing something very good! I gave you a 10, though.
Those christians (lower case c) will not listen to anyone else except maybe their own brethren, so it should be up to those they listen to to set them straight ... the problem is though, as far as I am concerned (and I have looked into this very deeply), is that the 'leaders' in charge, the authorities of all ranks, do not themselves practise what they preach in so many cases, not to mention those that do speak 'christianeese' so often even preach the lesser version, because they are so far away from the truth of Jesus themselves.
Yes, I think your comment touches on the awkward nature of the problem the term 'Christian' presents; Christ is the basic source of the now ubiquitous concept of not judging others hastily or openly. The concept of not judging others at all, is far trickier to grasp, and rarely confronted directly, as Christ did. For the most part, I think, it is not understood, and plays no part in what people actually do. The "light" version of this rather radical teaching of Christ has become a handy club with which to beat people over the head, as of course, it is not possible to say anything of substance which cannot be dissected in such a way as to render the speaker vulnerable to accusations of being "judgemental".
When one adds the equally radical concept of salvation through "faith in Christ", which has been similarly "lightened" to mean "declaring that one puts the odds at better than fifty fifty that Christ existed" through the employment of the term 'believe' in it's speculative sense, we Christians are left with a virtual ban on mentioning the fact that we can see plainly that many who call themselves "Christians" are simply decorating their self image with a convenient ornament. Any who do that, and so of course have no idea what Christ was actually talking about, are pretty much free to muck up the meaning of the original teaching no end.
Well, yes, of course all "groups" are vulnerable to being "cartoonified" by virtue of the failure of the vast majority of human beings to come to realize the images of people in their heads are not actually people. The only "people" we can actually witness realistically is our-self, but virtually no one does that, because they keep falling for the illusions generated in their imagination. They believe they too are something they can see in their imagination, and so believe they are a member of a group, or not, depending on what they desire to be true.
The real bitch, in my mind, about cartoonifying "Christians", is that what it actually means to be a follower of Christ, includes intentionally trying to overcome the illusion that those images in your head are people, and so the illusion that there is such a thing as a "group" of people. Each person is, in reality, all alone in every meaningful way, and is ultimately responsible for their own behaviour. And that, of course, is at the heart of all that Christ is telling us. That we ourselves must take responsibility for what we do, and will ultimately not be a part of any group, but stand before God Himself, alone.
Well, welcome to my planet. Earth is an interesting place, but the people here are rather fond of labels. They mean no harm by it, they just have the silly notion that it's their job to get everything organized neatly on shelves, cause they think there's going to be an inspection of their memory banks, and they will be graded on well they classified everything.
I guess one could say that my being a non-Christian precludes me from having any opinion at all about what a true Christian is. But I have friends and family who are very devout Christians, and they are people that I respect and admire a great deal. They do not judge others based on their sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political beliefs; they are kind and welcoming to one and all. They are not known to speak badly about others (even when it would be deserved), forgiving as you please, and generous to a fault.
The word I have been using to distinguish the good Christian people like those I know, from the ultra-judgemental, bigoted, war-mongering theocrats who would have their narrow views foisted on the entire country via legislative edict to build their twisted utopia that they mis-name a "Christian nation," is "Dominionists." This is the word used by Christian author Chris Hedges in his book "American Fascists."
Yes, you let slip the S word. Those unfamiliar with the Book have no way of grasping the almost nausiating innevitability of what is happening in this regard. I am at a loss for words to explain how perfectly predictable this entire assault on the meaning of being a Christ man is. And how central the wonderfully "magnetic" temptation to find some rationale for poking Christians in the eye is to what the S man is up to.
I know, of course, that he cannot be prevented from accomplishing his objective, but I'll be damned (literally) if I'll let him have an inch of ground I can defend in this world of souls. He will remember my name in some tiny little corner of his mind while he is dragged to the edge of oblivion, I hope.
Thanks, it is appreciated that you resist the "lumping" game. You have clearly been effected in precisely the way Christ spoke of being our duty to permit and foster. We cannot compete in the arena of distrust and vilification on an even footing with the arrogant bullies and "mongers", but must rely on the good sense and considered observation of you, to have any meaningful impact on the minds of our fellow inhabitants of the world.
That "disadvantage" can be quite frustrating at times, and I hope you can forgive those who succumb to the temptations of short term "rightness", and loose touch with the ultimate prize of humble righteousness, and love of our siblings. They are not all evil or hopeless, and please realize this is what Christ was speaking of when he said;
They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Which might in this matter translate in modern lingo to; "If you think they're bad now, you should see what they would be without my leash".
I can certainly see why you might think persons such as myself had an advantage in converting the delusionally "converted", but unfortunately that advantage is extremely small. It is quite similar to the advantage you have, as one who believes in Constitutional fidelity, in trying to change the attitude of those who simply believe they are being loyal to "America" because they support for the current regime and it's policies.
You see, it's not something the Book does to them, any more than it is the Constitution that causes some to support those who would betray it. And just as you cannot easily prevent those folks from filling their own minds with all sorts of images, and using the feelings of pride and belonging which follow, as validation for the correctness of those images; I have no power to prevent self generated "religious" delusions in those who do so with another set of images.
I try to tell people how this works, and why it cannot ever work any other way, regardless of what one is imagining about. Very few can approach such a thing though, for virtually everyone is doing this themselves in regard to their "self images", and react in that same way when one calls THAT "loyalty" into question. Human beings "believe" all sorts of silly things about them selves, because it makes them feel those same feelings of pride and belonging. They believe those feelings are sacred, and make life worth living.
Yes, I believe you are essentially right about "dominionism" in this form. Just as one would expect, there is something being distorted which the Bible does indeed speak of, so those only vaguely familiar with the Book might be taken in. The dominion is real, and may be at hand, but we are repeatedly and definitively told not to anticipate it in any significant way, under any circumstances. The concept that one would attempt to hurry or delay the arrival of THAT dominion, is blasphemy. It would be like telling God He overslept. In fact, this is the only instance I am aware of where Christ himself is "in the dark", and simply awaits.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not even the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Now, don't get me wrong; these folks could be part of the unfolding of the "end times", and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were. But that would mean they really ARE the tools they appear to be, merely puppets. And they can strain and grunt till they pop an artery, but they can't add or subtract a neo-second on the BIG clock.
Now, here again, don't go jumping to conclusions; I ain't saying they ain't human, or will surely fail to get a "re-souling" when judgment day comes, at the END of the thousand years with Christ calling the shots. Many will no doubt have a much better shot at getting their head straight, and my God is above all things merciful, and loves us very much. Let's just say I wouldn't want to be in those shoes on the day my Lord returns.
And . . . .
As a good writer you have expressed what most 'Disciples' of Christ feel. I personally would like to call everyone who pretends a Pharisee including the people from France - )) oops now I have offended the French. How about some more freedom fries?
I would like to add a label for all Bush like Christians - Rowers. I think you don't have to look far to find a bunch of democratic Hypocrites either.
"don't have to look far to find a bunch of democratic Hypocrites either"
No, of course not. Hypocrites come in all guises. Sometimes they look just like you and I. But these particular people are so very not "disciples", that even the atheists and "strong" agnostics can pretty much recognize what's going on, I think. I wouldn't mind if the word Christianist was applied to any who one doubts really stop and wonder how the teaching of Christ might apply to the difficult aspects of life, which is to say; are not really 'Disciples' of Christ. The phrase "so-called Christians" is roughly synonymous I guess.
I am interested in your understanding regarding what the BOOK says about civic duties? In a two party system when the messages are so mixed up and repeatedly I am forced to pick the lesser of two evils only to find out the lesser turned into greater of the evil after getting the job. The all incumbents out theory did not hold good either. Politically I am an independent and someone that tries hard to be a discpile of Christ I feel a disdain for the current political process the pandering to special interests and the money involved makes me sick in the stomach.
Hypocracy and pride are the last things people look for in themselves, Unfortunately all religions have their share of such people that corrupt the goodness they are supposed to infuse in humans.
"Killing an abortion doctor in the name of Christ falls on the feet of all Christians because they don't speak out against such activity."
And just how do you know that those who speak out against bombing abortion clinics are not Christian? Doing some stereotyping there, eh?
"Politically I am an independent and someone that tries hard to be a disciple of Christ"
Well I suppose I am too, but lately the RepubliCons have gotten a death grip on that party, and the nation. Realistically, voting Independent has favored the election of Republicans, and I can bemoan that all I wish, but it is still the truth.
The scriptures are rather clear, I feel, in that we are told to support the supreme authority of our society. In this country, that means the Constitution, and the people's will, since all elected officials are merely servants of those higher authorities. The Republicans have obviously been pissing all over those authorities for at least the last seven years.
Define yourselves by actions, not by words.
"NO. Therefore, in my opinion, he is NOT a Christian."
Ya know, I tried hard to keep some small crack open on that particular door, just to be "fair" and all . . . as I watched time and again how this Administration chose the path of fear and greed and violence. My Lord told me I will know them by their fruit, and I saw a whole lot of rotten outcomes when this man touched something . . .
When I saw him struggle and spin and deceive, to seize the right to kidnap and torcher my brothers, based on "secret" evidence, of "secret" crimes, given by "secret" informants . . . that door of doubt slammed shut. We KNOW what such a tree will bear; it will bear what that Cross bore: dead innocents. No disciple of Christ would plant such a tree.
; )
Yeah, I hear ya, but there's this little catch, which is what this is all about, from another point of view. He KNEW this would happen, and says so;
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father, which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father, which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace to the earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother, and the . . .
So . . . it's not really as simple as Mr. Lennon saw it, from a "believer's" perspective. There is a tendency to think the Book is some sort of a great "fixing" document, providing a recipe for heaven on earth, but it is far more complex than that, and does not have a "happy ending" in that regard. If one is familiar with the story, one knows it is utterly pointless to "Christianate" the world in any way. We are simply to be honest about what we have found. All the rest of the bullshit you see is not coming from this "side of the war". If someone is wearing that cross as a badge of pride, they are . . . "misguided". It is a symbol of great sorrow.
If you deny religion, then you deny the sacredness of religious books. There is the basic truth, and then there's the extraneous wrong surrounding it. I think we all know what the basic truth is - to love one another. We don't need any prophesies or embellishments or threats of punishments beyond that. We just need to love.
; - )
I think we all know the basic truth is we do not love one another.
Saying things would be better if we did is hardly dealing with that truth.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I suspect that you are disagreeing with my POV somehow, or thinking it naive. It is certainly not naive - all religions can be basically boiled down to this truth, so why is it naive to think that we should be striving for it? Just because people don't "get it" doesn't make a difference at all.
"What is "dealing with the truth" exactly mean?"
It means altering human beings such that they do love one another. Simply saying it would be best, has no effect on anyone. People have been saying such things throughout history, it has no meaning.
Hearing people speak glowingly of the term 'love', does not teach them to love. It just teaches them to say those words, and feel good about it. Then they think they have achieved love, cause they think love is that feeling they get when they say those words.
Love is not words. Love is not a feeling. Love is action.
There's an old joke an advisor once told me. Two Southern guys are talking about their religion and both discover that they are Baptists. Then one starts asking, "Are you [X] kind of Baptist?" The other one says, "Yes!". The first one keeps asking, "Are you [Y] kind of Baptist?", etc. etc. He goes through an entire list and the answer is "yes" until the last one, whereupon the respondent says, "No, I'm not." The other one frowns and says, "Then you are going to hell, sir."
It's funny, but true and sad, isn't it? Religion divides and takes us away from the truth, that's all I'm saying. Instead of teaching your kids for years the complexities of your particular brand of religion, wouldn't they "get it" much easier if you just said, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Period."
The problem is age old. No group term can identify all the members or beliefs of the group. The article was good . . . and I think the main thing that struck a chord with me is how the term has been so hijacked. A true conservative Republican would wince to be identified with the current party . . . as a true conservative Christian might not feel thrilled to be identifed with the religious fanatics claiming the name.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"wouldn't they "get it" much easier if you just said, "Love your neighbor as yourself. Period."
No. You know those words, but you do not practice what they say, even when discussing love itself. What you keep doing by pointing out the most superficial forms of religion is not love. It is not how you would wish to be treated. Would it be love if I kept pointing out the most hedonistic atheist behaviours, or spoke of the horrid things "nonChristians" do? Shall I imply that since "nonChristians" murdered hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century, it is clearly their lack of faith in Christ that causes all the misery in the world? . . . and then call that "striving" for love?
The words have no meaning unto themselves, one must actually do it.
Yes, it is that "hijacking" that I was bemoaning. Folks often fail to realize that it is no harder for a liar to say they are Christian, or "conservative", than to say they are interested in your welfare. A liar can lie about things others hold sacred, and it has nothing to do with the beliefs they exploit.
PS, I don't think those are "religious fanatics", just self fanatics. The liars have been using the term "religious fanatics" to their benefit, not to help you avoid the big bad boogeyman of taking God TOO seriously. Actual religious "fanatics" would be as harmless, and perhaps annoying, as flies.
If they "focus on dogma and practice", they are NOT the most "devout religious people". You are labeling people in a way that is obviously nonsensical.
Let me make this simple;
You will know them by their fruit.
If you keep thinking the people that are NOT behaving after the example of Christ are the "most devout", of course you will say all sorts of pointless things. You may have some great faith in bitching about others behaviour, but it never changed a heart before, and it probably won't now. The people you're bitching at can't understand what you're saying, and the Christians that can, are trying to be loving and tolerant. You are "preaching to your quire", and the thing you are fanning is not the flame of love . . . but antagonism and bitterness.
Just for the record (for people who happen by this post and read my comments) I do not "bitch" about anything. I'm almost 51 yrs old with grown children and a lot of education and experience behind me. Almost no one in my life even knows I am an atheist. In fact, I have never really even thought of myself as an atheist until quite recently when I really started to examine myself in relation to religion.
I do not lecture or preach or "bitch" about religion to anyone. If someone brings it up and wants to discuss the topic or specifically asks me, then I politely discuss my views, if they want to hear them. And they never include condemnation of other people's beliefs. For me, the Golden Rule holds true in everything.
Even you can be less than perfect. Even you can say you are for love, and yet fall victim to the impulse to treat others antagonistically for personal reasons. If you cannot accept such a concept, but instead believe that humming Beatles songs about love renders you impervious to less than loving reactions to people, there is nothing I can do to force you to face the possibility that no such magical thing is taking place.
I have not made ANYTHING personal, I have pointed out the FACT that you are not treating others as you would wish to be treated, when you focus on the most glaring examples of hypocrisy and foolishness among some large group of people. If I did such a thing to "blacks", as used to be common here, you would immediately recognize it for what it is; Stereotyping and negative "cherry picking". And yes, folks would throw in some crap about not meaning to imply ALL nigras are untrustworthy or lazy, and that they were just mentioning what they had observed, and meant no harm. But just doing this badmouthing about one identifiable group of people is WRONG, cause we all know damn well that hypocrites come in ALL colors and "denominations".
Christ DID NOT teach we are to treat the good folks well, and call that love. He said clearly that something far more was required, if one was to be his disciple in earnest;
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
You can simply ignore what those words are saying, and believe Christ meant to say we ought to go around condemning any we feel are not living up to our high standards of good conduct, believing we are doing something productive and loving, but I can not. I am bound to reason through what my words are actually doing to those who hear them. I must not say I am for love, and turn right around and purposely generate animosity, thinking that will transform people into saints. It won't. One must seek to understand ones fellows, and reason with them, just as I would wish others to do for me, should I fall into some habit of poor behaviour.
It's great that you see the wisdom of treating others as you wish to be treated, but that does not mean you will adhere to that concept without fail, or that declaring you favor that aproach is the same as actually taking that aproach. I condemn you not, for you are clearly a rational person intending to do good things. But I do question whether you have yet understood this marvelous concept fully, for I can see quite plainly that you are not being careful in how you treat others in this case.
Do you really believe you could not do better?
C'est la vie...
I advise you to read two important books about the Christ by an egyptian writer who read more than 40,000 books in all fields of life and wrote about 102 books, he is Abbas Mahmoud Al Aqqad, one of the two books which I'm reading now is called " The Christ's Life", it is more than wonderful, John and the other one called "The Christ's Genius".
There is no book about the Christ peace be upon him in the whole world is more wonderful than these two books about him.
"Not only Christianity that suffer, every religion came from God suffer."
I know. I am not really frustrated, I am doing the work at hand. I know things are not really likely to improve any time soon. I am just pointing out what is true, and hoping that this will allow those who are inclined to suspect the very thing I suggest, to finalize their understanding, in peace. I know that sometimes I need to hear another speak their truth before I can face my own squarely. We all need to keep speaking the truth for just this reason, I believe.
Ya know, those books you mention sound truly interesting, I must remember to check into them soon. Few books seem all that appealing to me anymore, perhaps because I have come to understand what the BOOKs are like (superb beyond human conception), or perhaps because I read so many of the great authors, that I am often disappointed in what passes for wisdom these days. But the ones you mention . . . have we tempted.
Thank you my friend.
What a splendid comment, thank you. I am coming to realize you are a "keeper". I see you, and you are for real.
That story has me smiling repeatedly. Is love not marvelously simple?
I've been away since our last conversation. I'll check out your recent posts and I look forward to the next.
Well thanks . . . that's a very nice thing to say. I certainly work at it.
Yes, just like that. He had a much better way with words than I.
Now do me a favor, John, and figure out a word for 'her/his' so when I am speaking in the singular I don't have to break the grammar rules and use 'their' incorrectly.:)
Well thanks, and thanks for not "judging" the book by it's cover. (I am a bit curious what the titled brought to mind)
I sure hear you about that virtually forced violation of grammatical propriety, and have winced ever so slightly a thousand times, regardless of how I handled the awkward thing. I don't think there's any way out. I've taken to using the term 'one' a lot, as in, "One must accept their fate at times". I realize this too is "improper", but it makes me wince a bit less. The "plural one" ?? Hey, it's sanctioned by God Him/Her/Itself .
"Jesus even told us we are to go look for and be with the lost among us"
And what do you suppose one is to do when one finds them?
It was the Pharisees that felt they were above interaction with the general masses while Jesus said that he came to seek and find that which was lost and reminded us that it is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. Jesus was adamant about reaching out to the lost.
One of Jesus' best friends, His companion for three years and one who knew better than nearly everyone else, said "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).
How can one love from a distances if one is more concerned with criticizing their actions than in working gently with them to mold and develop a reliance in the Holy Spirit in their lives?
Interesting. I thought it was asking them to turn to the way of Christ. Clearly, that would not include things like "preemptive war", or the abduction and torment of those "suspected" of evil doing. Pointing out that the lost have become enamored of such horrid behaviour, would hardly be out of line with the teachings of Jesus, since that is precisely what he did.
You may play games with words, by calling such "calling out" something like; "worrying about the sins of others", but Jesus called it salvation.
Did I not say that?
" To bring them into the fold by ministering to them - the Great Commission. "Therefore as you go, make disciples of all nations." Matt 28:19 "
The difference between your approach and mine is that I refuse to allow personalities to get in the way. Love the sinner, hate the sin, remember? I won't dispute that things people do don't always present a true vision of Christianity. But it's not my place to say who is and who isn't - that belongs to Jesus alone. No one can truly know another's heart. Yes, we will know them by their fruit but we also have to remember that salvation can only be obtained through the grace of Jesus. I can't give it and neither can you. If I can't offer salvation, how can I bar anyone from receiving it either? I can't - nor can you. That is why we are commended to use love. Peter, who was one of Jesus' best friends and followed Him closely for the entirety of His ministry, said that love covers a multitude of sins. Not the other person's love - the love of God in my heart. John 3:16, the most famous verse in the Bible, says that God so loved THE WORLD (my caps) that he gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. Not the people John Knight wants to recognize or be associated with. Not the people I want to recognize or be associated with either. THE WORLD - EVERYONE. God loves Osama bin-laden - but He hates his actions. And I don't have a choice - I have to love Osama too because I am commanded to love my neighbor as myself. Does that mean I like it? No. Doesn't matte what I think or like - it is what it is. I have to love Hillary Clinton, George Bush and the man who killed his whole family & sits on death row. That's what being a Christian is. Loving other as Jesus does.
And while politics and spirituality seem to be mutually exclusive, the issues are complex. Were Christians not rightfully vilified for our lack of involvement in the Holocaust? We we not criticized for our hands-off approach to Bosnia? Does God think it's OK to allow someone to torture an entire race of people like the Kurds? I'm not siding with Bush or anyone - all politicians are by definition slimy liars and thieves. But I pray for them. I hope that since they have a LOT more information than you or I do that they do the right thing. I prayed for Clinton & I pray for Bush. Because as Jesus said in the model prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." Not MY will - THY will. And God cannot abide sin or evil. tell me Saddam Hussein wasn't evil. So the issue isn't that we are involved - the issue is that we are mishandling it.
In the mean time, I am praying and rubbing elbows with the sinners, following my Savior's lead - because that's what Jesus told me - and ALL Christians - to do. Not to worry about who will sully my reputation by association. But to do His will and leave everything else up to Him.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. " - Matt 5:11
In another post you said you rejoice because of this - but here you complain about it. Which is it? Are you going to maintain your association with Christ and all of his band of sinners (you included)? Or are you going to isolate yourself like the Pharisees who were too good to be associated with the common people? Look in the mirror and ask the real question - What WOULD Jesus do? YOUR answer will tell you whether you are Christian or not - not the actions of others.
Can you not see that you are here criticizing me for speaking out about the perversion some have done to the meaning of being Christian, by lecturing me on what you believe I ought to do? Can you not see that your own actions here are a violation of your very call not to judge the behaviour of Christians?
Please explain how you come to possess the right to tell me I am not being a proper Christian, for intimating that others are not being proper Christians? If men have no such right to point out what is and is not appropriate, then you, being a man, have no such right either.
I face no such conundrum, for I do as my Lord directed, and I do not hide behind excuses woven of snippets of text. You tell me plainly please;
Is preemptive war in accordance with the teaching of Christ?
Is the abduction and torture of human beings on the basis of secret informants, in keeping with the teaching of Christ?
We live in a supposedly democratic society, and speaking out against brutality and ruthless men is not only my right, it is my duty. Obviously, if being a Christian meant one ought not do so, it would be quite helpful to those who wished the teaching of Christ to have no effect on our nation. I don't give a rat's ass what words a person can utter, I give NO pass to those who can form the syllables "I am Christian". As you said, the voracity of that claim is not for men to decide. One way, or the other.
He told us we would know them by their fruit, not their chatter.
We agree about that statement but what you & I are doing is different. I am rebukign and correcting you. You are condemning others because you don't like being associated with them. From your words you believe that you have the authority to say whether someone else is Christian or not, but that is an entirely individual thing between each person & God. But once they make a public profession of faith, yes we should say that certain actions are non-Christlike. That is why I am commenting here. Because that is a non-Christlike attitude that leads you to make non-Christlike statements.
BECAUSE - by saying you don't want to be called Christian because others you disagree with are, you are saying in essence that you are saved and they are not. And THAT is where we differ. There was a pastor in a nearby community here in Texas who stood up a couple of years ago & confessed to his congregation that he had not been saved. He had been going through the motions for over 10 years as their pastor, but did not commit himself to Jesus until that day. To the outside world, no one would have ever known that. But he knew. And God knew.
By the same token, your frequent use of vulgar language would lead some to question your salvation. I don't because that's not my place. As I said, it's between you & God. We are both Christians as far as I know. But the only one I'm certain of is me & the only one you're certain of is you.
That is my entire point. I don't have to agree or disagree with what someone is doing. If you feel led by the Holy Spirit to take a stand, more power to you. You have that right - and I agree, that duty. Just don't question another person's salvation. That's all. But if this were just about their actions and not your own pride, you wouldn't feel offended by the inclusion of these people under the label of Christian. I don't - because I know where I stand & so does God. I don't care what the world thinks of me - just what they think of my savior. I am commanded to love so I do - even when I disagree, and even when they don't act Christlike. Because I know others abide with me when I don't act Christlike. The rebuke and correct me, but they don't question my salvation. That is God's right and God's alone.
"We agree about that statement but what you & I are doing is different. I am rebukign and correcting you"
Only in your imagination Joe, I am rebuking them. That is obvious.
And I repeat, you have no more right to "question their salvation" than I do. You may pat yourself on the back all you wish, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume a person has "salvation", it is you who make a Judgement of souls.
How childish to forget that lying about being a "Christian" is no harder than lying about being a Yankee's fan, to a liar. Those who do not hold something sacred are in no way inhibited from exploiting other's faith and trust.
It's a one way street when it comes to the fear of God. No judgment on the basis of words is to be made by men. We are to observe action, fruit. That is what I am speaking of. If a man said he was Christ himself, I am told not to believe it. To speak of those you know on a personal basis is irrelevent, for there you have means other than sound-bites to make an assesment. Hitler too claimed to be Christian, when those who saw through it spoke out, were they being naughty?
There is merit to what you say and to your actions. You are correct - Hitler claimed to be Christian but his actions did not support him. Of course prominent members of the Catholic church in Germany claimed to be Christians as well at that time and their actions did not support them either. George Bush claims to be Christian but his actions betray him for the reasons you brought out. Bill & Hillary Clinton also claim to be Christians but their actions betray them because of the infidelity, Whitewater & other scandals, support for murdering unborn babies, etc. I already gave you my views on politicians - they are greasy liars. It's part of their trade. But I don't see you saying you want to distance yourself from the Clintons. In fact, I would assume by your anti-Bush vitriol that you support them despite their anti-Christian actions. Why? Probably because you share the same world views as they.
In the end, only one person can now his/her salvation - him/herself. There are good people in this world who are not saved. I'm sure you immediately thought of a list of public figures that fall into this classification immediately. And there are people who commit evils under the name of good. Recall the Crusades & the Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? Joe McCarthy? We are taught Biblically to understand that the fruits of the Spirit are solid measurements of a person's walk with Jesus. But we are also told of backsliders who were once saved & now have fallen away & back into the arms of the world. Does that make them any less saved? I don't know - and neither do you nor anyone else.
I do not dispute that you mean well. I also do not dispute that you have the right or even duty to speak up. What I am saying is that we - human beings - CANNOT know whether a person is saved or not. We can see if they are living as if they are saved and that is often a good indicator. But it is not absolute.
The basis for your article is pride and not whether someone is doing wrong- it is that they call themselves Christian so you no longer want to be called by that name. You don't want to be found guilty by association. I am simply trying to show you that if we follow Jesus none of us has that right. We are freed from the Law by grace and commanded to love others - to share that grace. And part of that is to accept that others have faults just as we do. We want others to overlook our faults - so we are commanded to overlook theirs. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." We are not forgiven if we do not forgive others. We don't accept the sin - but we do accept the sinner, no matter what he has done. The parable of the prodigal son provides an enormous number of details for this view.
My suggestion: stop comparing your Christianity to their actions. Remove Christianity from your comments about them. It has little basis for your remarks other than they are claiming to be Christan and it bothers you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it bothers you for valid reasons. But it makes it appear that you are standing as arbiter. Their deeds will speak for themselves, and those who have discernment will be able to discern. There is no need to justify ourselves for the world - Christ is our justification.
We see much the same reality in many ways, but I find your remarks so heavily influenced by imagination that you drift away from common sense at critical junctures, which if not done, would< I believe, allow you to grasp more fully the reasons I wrote this piece.
First, realize; You do not know that I wrote this out of pride, or for any pride based purpose. Yet, you have flatly stated it is so. Now, you can apologize, or rationalize ad infinitum, but the fact remains, and the import of that fact has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings about that, or the technical accuracy of your verdict. The import is, I say, that it is a clear and examinable thing you did. It provides you, if you wish to look, with insight into what humans actually do when "judging" others.
Second, you have made a blanket condemnation of all "politicians". This is patently absurd, and you are clearly in no position to make such a judgment about millions of real live human beings you have no knowledge of. You have demonstrated without a doubt that you are pre-judging your fellows, based on imagined qualities and deeds you have not seen them display. Politicians are not a sub-species, and are entitled to the very same individuality and impartial observation as anyone else. What you here declare, is a condemnation of any that might seek to serve the public, regardless of their motives or heart. You have thereby made the rotten fruit indistinguishable from the healthful. You provide cover for wicked people. The more wickedly they behave, the more "guilty" and untrustworthy the very people that are in a position to actually SEE that wickedness done, and tell of it, become in your mind.
It is these, and other sloppy judgment tendencies that I was seeking to bring to light in writing this article. My purpose was to incite people to reason through their own basis for judgment. Whether one condemns "all" politicians, or gives a "pass" to all who claim to be Christian, or assume those that do things they find disturbing have actually done something wrong, is not much concern to me. If such sloppy judgmentalism is accepted by a person, in themselves or others, it matters not what they judge sloppily, the truth is at risk of falling in the street.
Now, I could have just told folks to judge more wisely, but that has no effect or meaning. I could have admonished folks that they ought to be careful in judging others, but that provides no observable, or understandable basis for being careful. My intent was to provoke YOU, a real person, to reconsider what you do, based on what you can actually observe and work with. I seek to undermine the work of "Satan", which is deception and confusion.
I seek not to defeat the IDEA of Satan. Or the IDEA of false judgment. Or the IDEA of people claiming to be what they are not, but the damage actually done to wisdom as a result of prideful rationalization. Whithout that, Satan has no place to hold on to a person. They are "inoculated" against the next deception, by their comprehension of how the deception itself works.
Now, you may decide no human can understand how deception works, or that no human can take up arms against Satan by undermining the vulnerability of his targets. I care not, I do here what I am told by my Lord to do.
We are very similar. We all have faults because we are human. What it boils down to from my perspective is that I hold everyone up to the same measuring stick. We all fail, and some appear to fail more drastically than others. You believe wisdom can be damaged - but it comes from the Word of God which is perfect and eternal. Anyone who the Holy Spirit moves will know and see the difference. Those who are not moved by the Spirit won't get it no matter what is said. That's a Biblical principle. It makes no difference what anyone says or does - God is and will remain God and His wisdom will remain unchanged.
From your posts, it seems that you believe that your place in this battle is to attack the powers that be - with some exceptions. You have made it appear that believe President Bush is on a par with Hitler. That seems a stretch to me, but you are entitled to your opinion. This makes it look you believe that the president and his supporters are hypocrites but others are OK despite their own anti-Christian actions. Or at least your silence against them makes it appear so. Based on my own experience, I believe all politicians are at least somewhat flawed and crooked because they have to compromise their morals in order to get and stay elected. The actions of our current and previous presidents adequately show this to be true. It may not be true about all politicians, but it's hard to imagine many being in office without lying or compromising themselves. It is the nature of the beast.
Even with that said, I pray for our leaders. I also pray for those who are not saved - because God loves all. I pray specifically for Osama bin-laden so that he will turn from his evil ways and help stop the madness that he spreads. I pray for Marilyn Manson so that perhaps he will also turn from evil and spread the Gospel to his millions of lost fans. I pray for Tom Cruise, that he would case using his popularity as a platform for New Age garbage and use it to promote Christianity. I cannot change any of those directly, but that is my world view and the way I can effect a change on it.
Jesus went to Zacchaeus' house for dinner. Had He condemned him like the popular opinion & the Sanhedrin, Zacchaeus would have remained lost. Instead Jesus loved him into salvation and that changed Zacchaeus' heart. Yes, Jesus also condemned the Pharisees - but He did it not to blindly criticize but because He cared. He loved them and wished to show them the error of their ways. Had I read that you disagree with the president but that you hurt because he isn't acting in the way you would expect a Christian to act I would have seen Jesus at work in you. Inseam I read the opinion of another critic. Only this time it appeared that you were condemning him in a Pharisaic tone - condemning him while perched on your own mountaintop. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got from your writing. Yes, we are allowed to do this Biblically, but the mountaintop is a precarious position to be in. Make sure that the Holy Spirit placed you is holding you, that you are not climbing up there of your own volition.
That was the essence of what I was trying to say but apparently I was unsuccessful. I apologize for that. Like you I seek to reach out and stem the tide of evil. You prioritize evils differently than I do - the war in the Middle East vs the streets and homes of our own country. I'm not dismissing your view, but in dismissing people who are looking in this other direction you are missing mine and the view of many other Christians in the country. You may still disagree with me and if so, I'm OK with that. But I stand by this: I recognize evil and do what I can to fight it, but I remember that my most important and powerful weapons are prayer and love.
I follow the mandate of my Master - Jesus changed the world from the bottom up by loving and caring for others., And so I try to do the same. And sometimes that makes it look lie I condone the sin - but instead I try to love the sinner so that he/she can know the immense love of God that changes lives.
The Word is the key to wisdom. If those not presently aware of that believe that the Word makes one violent or foolish, they will not seek it's wisdom. If those who are not genuine, do violent or foolish things, and claim they are true to the Book, those who do not know better will become hardened to the Word, and remain lost.
You speak more of imagined things concerning who I do and do not support and why. This is just stuff you imagine, not my fruit. Please do as our Lord requested, and not as your own rationale incites you.
No where do I, since you bring me into this judgment, defend or promote those you speak of. I here point out that some who champion the current Administration are poor examples of what Christ asked people to be. I do that because many, I believe, do not take the time or trouble to look closely at these questions. So I took the time and trouble to attempt to shed light on how this is playing out. At other times I have tried to shed light on various "New Age" sorts of perversions and editings of the Word. And at others, taken on those who defame and belittle the Book and it's adherents. I am an equal opportunity pest. I defend the Book against all who undermine it's truth.
I seek to keep the path to the Book open. In the real world. In the hearts and minds of the real people. I don't know what you seek.
And that is what I seek. I seek to change lives though the love of Jesus. With that anything can happen. Without it nothing will. Christ's love is the light of the world and it drives away darkness - fighting darkness without it is futile. That's the only way to truly succeed in the real world. People get beaten up by the secular side of life enough - we shouldn't contribute to that. Christians are commanded to love all so that they are attracted to the display of Jesus in our lives and words. If it was impossible we wouldn't be commanded to do it; but if it was easy it wouldn't need to be a commandment.
God bless you & your search. I'm sorry that my humanity caused me to do the very thing I was trying to correct in you. Take care.
Well thank you for taking a careful look, that is always a good thing.
I do not share your thoughts on the futility of keeping the "path" as clear as possible. We are the Holy Spirit in action, if what we do is true to the Master's instructions. I do not feel it is our place to decide what will or will not result in the "last straw" for either those tempted to, or away from, the Books wisdom.
I realize that many read various instructions as if exclusive, or prohibitive of free actions by those attempting to remain faithful, but I cannot justify such by the Word. He was most varied and active in all sorts of approaches. I strive to see to my own motivations and reasoning, and not be much deterred by what this or that human makes of it all.
You take care, and keep watchful.
There are Jewish fanatics, too. "Zionist" is misused for this. Perhaps there is a word used in Hebrew in Israel for those who seek to force the Jewish state to be a theocracy. Jewish fanatics join Christian and Muslim ones in Europe and North America to combat equality for women and gay people.
Hindu nationalists and even fanatic Buddhists (in Sri Lanka) parallel Christianists and Islamists not only in style but in substance in regard to sex and sexual orientation demeaning.