Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I referenced my theologian friend Greg Boyd in another thread, but I wanted to break out a different thread for a different post. Boyd, along with Clark Pinnock, is perhaps the leading theologian on Open Theism, a theology which I am leaning towards these days because it explains a lot of what I believe independently in my own Biblical study.
Boyd has recently discovered a French author and theology named Jaques Ellul, who advocated Christian Anarchy in the mid-20th Century. Christian Anarchy goes too far, IMO, and Ellul did not hold to the same traditionally exclusive doctrines that I and Boyd do, but he did author an outstanding book title The Subversion of Christianity. In a nutshell, Ellul believed Christianity is robbed of its power when there's a grab for political or worldly power.
Here are Boyd's outstanding summations (I couldn't have stated it better):
Quote:
Ellul's basic thesis is that the Kingdom Jesus inaugurated with his life, death and resurrection has been subverted -- converted into its opposite, in fact -- in the religion of Christendom. This happened primarily because leaders in the 4th and 5th century decided to give into the temptation that Jesus resisted (Lk 4:5-7) -- namely, acquiring political power (thus, submitting to the devil's authority). Christianity thus was co-opted by "the powers." A movement that was in its very essence non-conformist became a religion of conformity. Indeed, Christianity has historically usually been a defender of the status quo ("conservative").
More specifically, Ellul shows that Christianity has been subverted by:
* SUCCESS. The Kingdom only works when it's lived out in small numbers. Once it becomes a mass movement, it becomes an ideology and loses its soul.
* MONEY. A movement that was founded on people renouncing all possessions got seduced into sanctifying the "right" to possessions.
* MORALITY. This is a huge point. Ellul totally gets that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is judgment and is at the root of all sin (see chapter IV). The Kingdom revolution is a revolution of the Spirit -- which is the antithesis of living on the basis of ethics. He continually stresses that the New Testament and the early Jesus-movement "has no morality." Once Christianity became a ruling power and a successful mass movement, however, it had to control people with rules.
* RELIGION. The Jesus movement is anti-religious. But people crave religion. They have "religious needs" that the Jesus movement undermines. When the movement became a mass movement, it became a Christianized version of pagan religion.
* PRAGMATISM. The Kingdom was founded on the singular concern to be faithful to God, not a concern to fix the world. Once Christianity became successful, however, it wrongly assumed responsibility to rule the world and got practical. Since most of Jesus' teachings are impractical, they had to be set aside.
* VIOLENCE. Non-violence never seems practical, so it was among the things that needed to go. (Here Ellul curiously argues that the example of Islam was the main influence in making Christianity a violent religion, see Chapter V).
* POLITICS. Here Ellul is at his best, showing how Jesus' apolitical/anti-political movement was transformed into the handmaiden of politics. He shows that Christianity has almost always pathetically given divine sanction to whatever political regime it found itself in. Using ingenious theological arguments right out of the Bible, the Church defended the monarchy when it found itself under a monarchy and the Republic form of government when under this type of government. So too, it defended Socialism under Socialism, Communism under Communism and of course Democracy under a Democracy. The movement whose heart is to revolt against all government to manifest the reign of God is reduced to a silly defender of whatever government happens to be in charge.
* POWER. The heart of the problem, Ellul argues, is that we fear the freedom the Kingdom offers us. It's the radical freedom of possessing nothing -- including power. We rather crave the security of things, of power, of rules, and of pretending we are free (e.g. by having a vote) when in fact we are in bondage. The Spirit was to set us free, but this requires relinquishing all these things.
I believe these themes are the future of the Evangelical body of believers and people like Greg Boyd are taking us there. I don't think they will undermine the current Evangelical powerholders, but you can see their power weakening by the day. History shows when Christians go about their duty as Christians -- as servants, not power holders -- society always benefits in multiple dimensions.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
There's a Christian 'radical independent' in Texas who goes after the wealthy evangelicals, coming from a similar kind of perspective, Ole Anthony I think is his name. I was impressed when I read about him.
When you present Christianity in this way, the practiced sounds pretty close to original Buddhism (apart from the specific 'God' piece, of course).
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
This version is NOTHING like what the NeoCons have been pushing, NOTHING like Falwell and his ilk.
I have NO problem with the version outlined above - it seems to lack the hate that most "Christian" leaders mix into their "holy message".
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
There's a Christian 'radical independent' in Texas who goes after the wealthy evangelicals, coming from a similar kind of perspective, Ole Anthony I think is his name. I was impressed when I read about him.
If you look in the mast head on the Wittenburg Door, the magazine for which Ole is publisher, you will find my "bio."
Absolutely. And I vote my conscience. I sense a series of questions coming and I'm more than anxious to answer any of them you might have.
Good, I am glad to here that and I really don’t have any follow up questions.
I agree with a lot that you have been posting. With the risk of subjecting myself to much ridicule; sometimes I think the Grace of God is shared with out the truth of God being mentioned. Something my pastor often says came to mind: Grace – Truth = libertinism, Truth – Grace = legalism, But Grace + Truth = Love.
As Christian I think we have just as much right to vote as everyone else. When we do vote I personally feel we should vote along the lines of our Christian beliefs. I know you stated that politics should not be part of your Christian life but if I remember right there were many politicians that God used in the Bible. But I agree our main concern should be talking more about Jesus and less about politics.
__________________
There will never be enough questions answered to eliminate faith
GAs Christian I think we have just as much right to vote as everyone else. When we do vote I personally feel we should vote along the lines of our Christian beliefs. I know you stated that politics should not be part of your Christian life but if I remember right there were many politicians that God used in the Bible. But I agree our main concern should be talking more about Jesus and less about politics.
It works out really simple for me: The Gospel is above all other doctrine, faith, morality -- or any other system we use to understand God. I refuse to allow my politics (or anyone else's) to subjugate the Gospel. When people begin to think being a Christian = being a member of the GOP or supporting Republic causes, Christians have failed. Miserably. Horribly. That's what I'm fighting.
The question I have for my fellow Christians is where their faith is. We serve a big, active, powerful God. He doesn't need a political agent of change. God is his own agent of change. I believe if we spent as much time being the Church as much as we spend trying to play politics, so many of these issues we think have political answers fade into the background. Why aren't we praying for revival?
Anyone who has spent one moment studying Jonathan Edwards will realize where real change comes from, and it's not in the subcommittee for special corporate interest. Frankly, in subjugating the Gospel, we've subjugated the very social justice for the poor and the weak and the hungry that we are commissioned to care for. I DO NOT want to be that savvy political activist who some day has to answer to God when He asks, "Did you feed my children when they were hungry? Did you clothe them when we were naked? Did you heal them when they were sick?"
Those are the heavy questions, man. That's where my heart is, and all the political stuff burdens it. Especially when I see so many church resources going to PACs and what not.
*sigh*
Everytime someone questions me with, "There is famine and pestilence ravaging Africa -- where is your God?" I can help but think, "Well, the Church is the Body, but the right hand was at a pro-life rally in Maryland, the left hand was busy pointing fingers at "lazy bums" who won't get a job, the brain was thinking up new ways to get elected, and the mouth was busy profaning God by blaming people who don't believe for not behaving like Christians."
As an agnostic rationalist I BLAME faith for a lot of the problems in the world.
Feeding the hungry, housing for all, medical care for all - NONE of these require any faith in the supernatural - most humans regardless of philosophy have EMPATHY.
Still - I applaud kind hearted religious people for being so IN SPITE OF religion.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
It works out really simple for me: The Gospel is above all other doctrine, faith, morality -- or any other system we use to understand God. I refuse to allow my politics (or anyone else's) to subjugate the Gospel. When people begin to think being a Christian = being a member of the GOP or supporting Republic causes, Christians have failed. Miserably. Horribly. That's what I'm fighting.
The question I have for my fellow Christians is where their faith is. We serve a big, active, powerful God. He doesn't need a political agent of change. God is his own agent of change. I believe if we spent as much time being the Church as much as we spend trying to play politics, so many of these issues we think have political answers fade into the background. Why aren't we praying for revival?
Anyone who has spent one moment studying Jonathan Edwards will realize where real change comes from, and it's not in the subcommittee for special corporate interest. Frankly, in subjugating the Gospel, we've subjugated the very social justice for the poor and the weak and the hungry that we are commissioned to care for. I DO NOT want to be that savvy political activist who some day has to answer to God when He asks, "Did you feed my children when they were hungry? Did you clothe them when we were naked? Did you heal them when they were sick?"
Those are the heavy questions, man. That's where my heart is, and all the political stuff burdens it. Especially when I see so many church resources going to PACs and what not.
*sigh*
Everytime someone questions me with, "There is famine and pestilence ravaging Africa -- where is your God?" I can help but think, "Well, the Church is the Body, but the right hand was at a pro-life rally in Maryland, the left hand was busy pointing fingers at "lazy bums" who won't get a job, the brain was thinking up new ways to get elected, and the mouth was busy profaning God by blaming people who don't believe for not behaving like Christians."
Wow. I applaud you. Great post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justAndy
As an agnostic rationalist I BLAME faith for a lot of the problems in the world. Feeding the hungry, housing for all, medical care for all - NONE of these require any faith in the supernatural - most humans regardless of philosophy have EMPATHY.
Still - I applaud kind hearted religious people for being so IN SPITE OF religion.
As an agnostic rationalist I BLAME faith for a lot of the problems in the world.
I blame evil. However you define evil is fine with me as long as we agree evil is the enemy of justice, goodness, and civility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justAndy
Feeding the hungry, housing for all, medical care for all - NONE of these require any faith in the supernatural - most humans regardless of philosophy have EMPATHY.
I hope no one ever thinks I imply otherwise. My point was specifically that Christians have an obligation, regardless of how we feel. You don't need to have any special feelings to do the work of God. Sometimes I think Christians get caught up in feeling as opposed to doing. Being active in politics is a great way to satisfy one's feeling (or even guilt) without actually getting one's hands dirty.
I blame evil. However you define evil is fine with me as long as we agree evil is the enemy of justice, goodness, and civility.
I hope no one ever thinks I imply otherwise. My point was specifically that Christians have an obligation, regardless of how we feel. You don't need to have any special feelings to do the work of God. Sometimes I think Christians get caught up in feeling as opposed to doing. Being active in politics is a great way to satisfy one's feeling (or even guilt) without actually getting one's hands dirty.
That's fair.
It's unfortunate that self appointed "christian" leaders get the publicity with their opposition to anything that's not just like them.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
Linear Mode
