Is there anybody out there?
Matt
interested in making this active again?
To get the ball rolling, here are my thoughts on Jeremiah 23:13-15.
(For convenience, I'll reproduce the verse here.)
In the prophets of Samaria I saw a disgusting thing:
they prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray.
But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a more shocking thing:
they commit adultery and walk in lies;
they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from
wickedness;
all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like
Gomorrah.
Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets:
"I am going to make them eat wormwood, and give them poisoned water to
drink;
for from the prophets of Jerusalem ungodliness has spread throughout
the land."
----------------
Am I wrong in seeing a parallel between what Jeremiah saw, and what we
have in America today? On the left, we have heretics (prophets of
Samaria) who proclaim a "gospel" of unlimited personal freedom (akin
to Baal-worship; Baal was a pagan fertility god). On the right, we
have the establishment (prophets of Jerusalem), who "commit adultery
and walk in lies," and "strengthen the hand of evildoers." Jeremiah
repeatedly uses the metaphor of adultery to condemn idolatry;
therefore, this passage probably condemns the Jerusalem prophets' for
being disloyal to God, not for cheating on their wives.
God isn't happy with either set of (false) prophets, but the prophets
of Jersualem receive the harsher judgment-because they "strengthen the
hand of evildoers" and allow ungodliness to "spread throughout the
land." And how else can one describe a land where the worship of
mammon reigns supreme, and where weapons of war have a higher claim to
the public fisc than the poor and the oppressed?
If I'm reading too much into this passage, let me know. (I think the
rest of Jeremiah, and chapter 23 in particular, supports my POV.) But
if my reading is correct, isn't this a call of action? What can we,
as ordinary Christians, do?
Brian
I agree, there is a parallel. Some self-proclaimed Christians do
preach a false "gospel" of unlimited personal freedom. In other
words, they preach that it is acceptable to sin. For example, there
are assemblies within the Episcopal church that refuse to condemn
homosexual sex. And in the opposite extreme there are assemblies that
focus totally on the letter of the Law, not placing any value in
having a personal relationship with Christ.
I'd be interested in more of your thoughts on the passage.
Matt
I think you and I disagree on homosexuality-- given what we know about
1st-Century Rome, I read Romans as condemning promiscuous (orgy-like)
behavior. I don't presume to know that Paul would extend the same
condemnation to sexual activity in the context of a loving, monogamous
relationship.
Leaving aside our disagreement there, many of my fellow liberals do,
as you put it, preach that it is acceptable to sin. Without getting
into the thorny dynamics of the divorce issue, I think liberal
Christians as a group take divorce far too lightly. Likewise,
Christians retain a clear duty to teach our children that promiscuity
is sinful. Too often, our desire to avoid what we perceive to be the
excesses of others prevents us from doing our duty.
All that said, the Bible has far more to say about poverty,
oppression, injustice, violence and greed than it does about sexual
morality. This is especially true of the Gospels. Even though our
resolve is wanting, the liberal church at least recognizes these as
the issues that most concerned Christ-- which makes them the issues
that should most concern us. This is where the mostly conservative
Christian establishment fails dramatically.
Where is the conservative church on the issue of poverty? To be sure,
many conservative Christians do wonderful charity work, but charity is
a poor substitute for justice. The Catholic Church historically has
stood courageously for social justice, but in America they are soft-
pedaling their views, perhaps to ingratiate themselves with
conservative politicians.
Where is the conservative church on oppression? Can you recall a
conservative pastor delivering a sermon on police brutality, or hate
crimes? What about the dozens of migrants who die in the deserts of
Arizona and New Mexico every summer? Isn't Mt 25:31-46 pretty clear
about our responsibilities here?
Where is the conservative church on violence? Leaving aside the
current controversy over Iraq, where is the indignation about a
bipartisan foreign policy that uncritically accepts force as its
centerpiece, and even contemplates first-strike use of nuclear
weapons? What about our sale of arms to some of the world's worst
human rights violators, including governments (like Saudi Arabia's)
who imprison anyone who dares to practice Christianity in public?
(Jeremiah criticized such unholy alliances in his time; see, e.g., Jer
2:14-19).
Last but not least, where is the conservative church on greed? Here,
the church is part of the problem. Demanding action on poverty would
be a prophetic stand; unfortunately, it would also mean opposing tax
cuts, which in turn would mean losing members. The conservative
church faces a similar conundrum on immigration, and on issues of war
and peace.
Too many Christians are more patriotic than pious; they are shaped
more by the flag than by the cross. They eschew prophetic religion in
favor of proof-texting that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.
Too many pastors are more than happy to oblige. And what is the
result? You guessed it: they "strengthen the hand of evildoers" and
cause "ungodliness [to] spread throughout the land."
Yes, these are the latter-day "prophets of Jerusalem." And while
Jeremiah makes no excuses for the prophets of Samaria, the prophets of
Jerusalem are the main target of his wrath.
> > as ordinary Christians, do?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian
On Mar 27, 3:20 pm, "Matt" <mauf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you and I disagree on homosexuality-- given what we know about
> 1st-Century Rome, I read Romans as condemning promiscuous (orgy-like)
> behavior. I don't presume to know that Paul would extend the same
> condemnation to sexual activity in the context of a loving, monogamous
> relationship.
Yes, we do disagree on the sinfulness of homosexual sex. As I read
it, verses like Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 are very clearly
condeming the homosexual act... not promiscuity. Promiscuity is
condemned elsewhere in Scripture. Homosexual sex is the topic in
Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22.
> Leaving aside our disagreement there, many of my fellow liberals do,
> as you put it, preach that it is acceptable to sin. Without getting
> into the thorny dynamics of the divorce issue, I think liberal
> Christians as a group take divorce far too lightly. Likewise,
> Christians retain a clear duty to teach our children that promiscuity
> is sinful. Too often, our desire to avoid what we perceive to be the
> excesses of others prevents us from doing our duty.
Amen to that. Not all "liberal" scholars preach that sin is
acceptable, but many do.
> All that said, the Bible has far more to say about poverty,
> oppression, injustice, violence and greed than it does about sexual
> morality. This is especially true of the Gospels. Even though our
> resolve is wanting, the liberal church at least recognizes these as
> the issues that most concerned Christ-- which makes them the issues
> that should most concern us. This is where the mostly conservative
> Christian establishment fails dramatically.
I agree, many (but certainly not all) conservatives are not as
concerned about the poor as they should be. I agree that Christ
taught that feeding and clothing the poor, protecting the helpless,
faithfully administring justice, seeking peace, etc. is fundamental to
what it means to be a Christian. That's true of many (but certainly
not all) liberals as well, however. If you love your neighbor you
won't want to cheat them or hurt them. You will want to help them
when they are poor or helpless. With conservatives, the poor are the
ones that are often neglected in favor of the wealthy. With liberals,
children (particularly the unborn children) and the weak (subject to
the violence of crime) are the ones that are often neglected in favor
of selfish mothers and violent criminals. Both liberals and
conservatives often let and even encourage the powerful rule
depotically over the disenfranchised.
> Where is the conservative church on the issue of poverty? To be sure,
> many conservative Christians do wonderful charity work, but charity is
> a poor substitute for justice. The Catholic Church historically has
> stood courageously for social justice, but in America they are soft-
> pedaling their views, perhaps to ingratiate themselves with
> conservative politicians.
Indeed. And where is the liberal church when the unborn child is
about to be murdered?
> Where is the conservative church on oppression? Can you recall a
> conservative pastor delivering a sermon on police brutality, or hate
> crimes? What about the dozens of migrants who die in the deserts of
> Arizona and New Mexico every summer? Isn't Mt 25:31-46 pretty clear
> about our responsibilities here?
Indeed. And where is the liberal church when violent criminals are
given light sentences and allowed to return to their victims again?
> Where is the conservative church on violence? Leaving aside the
> current controversy over Iraq, where is the indignation about a
> bipartisan foreign policy that uncritically accepts force as its
> centerpiece, and even contemplates first-strike use of nuclear
> weapons? What about our sale of arms to some of the world's worst
> human rights violators, including governments (like Saudi Arabia's)
> who imprison anyone who dares to practice Christianity in public?
> (Jeremiah criticized such unholy alliances in his time; see, e.g., Jer
> 2:14-19).
Indeed. And where is the liberal church when the imams of radical
Islam call for the violent deaths of innocents?
> Last but not least, where is the conservative church on greed? Here,
> the church is part of the problem. Demanding action on poverty would
> be a prophetic stand; unfortunately, it would also mean opposing tax
> cuts, which in turn would mean losing members. The conservative
> church faces a similar conundrum on immigration, and on issues of war
> and peace.
Indeed. And where is the liberal church on greed? Taking from Peter
to give to Paul doesn't demonstrate compassion. The liberal wants to
take from others to give to the poor. The liberal should give his own
money to the poor in order to demonstrate his compassion. And so
should the conservative. Many liberals do give to and volunteer with
charities. And so do conservatives. Compassion is necessarily an act
of an individual, not the government. I believe the liberals are
wrong in this. Asking the government to take care of the poor, IMO,
is the opposite of compassionate. It's an easy way to FORGET about
the poor.
> Too many Christians are more patriotic than pious; they are shaped
> more by the flag than by the cross. They eschew prophetic religion in
> favor of proof-texting that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.
> Too many pastors are more than happy to oblige. And what is the
> result? You guessed it: they "strengthen the hand of evildoers" and
> cause "ungodliness [to] spread throughout the land."
I agree. Too many Christians are more patriotic than pious. That is
the problem with both liberals and conservatives, IMO. Everyone has
that problem, IMO.
> Yes, these are the latter-day "prophets of Jerusalem." And while
> Jeremiah makes no excuses for the prophets of Samaria, the prophets of
> Jerusalem are the main target of his wrath.
I don't agree. Both groups of prophets are equally under God's
judgement. He has more to say about the prophets of Jerusalem because
the book was being written to Israel, not Samaria. I think you are
reading too much into the text.
Matt
The liberal church certainly has its own problems with many of the
vices I named. Greed, in particular, is a cancer on every branch of
the church, and has been since the early days (1 Tim 6:10). When we
water down the Gospel to avoid offending some church members (and
thereby losing their pledges), that is greed in action.
Jeremiah's harshest words aren't reserved for the "prophets of
Jerusalem" because they are worse than the "prophets of Samaria," but
because the prophets of Jerusalem wield wider influence. The prophets
of Samaria lead some astray, but they lack the stature to "strengthen
the hand of evildoers" the way the prophets of Jerusalem do. To put
it in modern terms: when John Shelby Spong speaks, people yawn; when
James Dobson speaks, people listen. Those with greater influence have
greater responsibility (cf. Jas 3:1).
Unlike you, I view abortion as a thorny moral issue, rather than a
black-and-white one. Even if we agree that abortion is always morally
wrong, it's far from clear that criminalizing abortion is the
solution. Latin America has strong anti-abortion laws, and also the
world's highest abortion rates. Europe is staunchly pro-choice, and
has much lower abortion rates than the United States. Therefore, we
gain little by parsing the ethical implications of abortion. Instead,
Christians should find common ground in reducing the number of
abortions, and in making sure no child grows up wanting for nutritious
food, adequate shelter, access to health care, and so on.
With this understanding, I don't think it's clear that conservatives
protect children more effectively than their liberal counterparts.
Charity may be delivered best by private individuals, but charity is
no substitute for justice-- and justice requires government. I want
to take some of the money we spend on war and preparations for war and
use it to provide for the basic needs of the poor. I want to take
some of the money we spend on highways and use it to improve our
schools. I want to take ALL the money we spend locking up nonviolent
drug offenders and use it to make every neighborhood in America as
safe as mine. And if there is money left over after we do all that,
and care for our elders (one thing government actually does well), I
don't want to give the lion's share of it to those who already benefit
disproportionately from the economic system our government makes
possible. If that's "taking from Peter to give to Paul," I plead
guilty.
Peace.